Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Exploration Into the Effects of Recasts and Self-initiated
Self-repair During the Output-based Interactive Activities on
Japanese EFL Learners’ English Learning.
2014
兵庫教育大学大学院
連合学校教育学研究科
(岡山大学)
佐藤臨太郎
Table of Contents
List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………...Xii
Chapter 1 Introduction………………………………………………………………...1
1.1 Background…………………………………………………………………………...1
1.2 Organization of the Thesis………………………………………………………. …..3
Chapter 2 Literature Review…………………………………………………………..6
2.1 Second Language Acquisition Theories…………………………………………. 6
2.1.1 Input ypothesis………..………………………………………………….....6
2.1.2 Output Hypothesis…………………………………………………………7
2.1.3 Interaction Hypothesis… …………………………………………………...9
2.1.4 Noticing ypothesis…………………………………………………………11
2.2 Oral Recasts Studies……………………………………………………………...12
2.2.1 Definitions of Recasts…………………………………………………12
2.2.2 Uptake, Repair and Needs-repair………………………………………….16
2.2.3 Effects of Recasts on Learning…………………………………………….16
2.2.3.1 Advantages of Recasts.…………………………………………….16
2.2.3.2 Recast Features and Their Effects………………………………....18
2.2.3.3 Phenomena…………………………………………………………20
2.2.3.3.1 Acknowledgement………………………………………20
2.2.3.3.2 Later Incorporation……………………………………..21
2.2.3.3.3 No Opportunity…………………………………………21
2.2.4 Issues and Problems of Recasts……………………………………………22
2.3 Written Feedback in the Form of Recasts……………………………………….....23
2.3.1 Importance of Writing……………………………………………………..23
2.3.2 Pros and Cons of Feedback in Writing…………………………………….24
2.3.3 Students’ View of Feedback……………………………………………….25
2.3.4 Trade- offs in Writing……………………………………………...………26
2.3.5 Effects of Written Recasts………………………………………………..27
2.3.6 Comparison of Written Recasts with Oral Recasts………………………...27
2.4 Self-initiated Self-repair………………………………………………………….28
2.4.1 Importance of Self-initiated Self-repair in the Japanese EFL Classroom…28
2.4.2 Definitions and Studies on Self-initiated Self-repair………………………29
Chapter 3
Examining the Effectiveness of Recast for Japanese High School Students
with low English Proficiency……………………………………………………………….31
3.1 Study 1: Examining the Effectiveness of Recasts for Japanese
High School Students………………………………………………………31
3.1.1 Purpose of the Study…………………………………………………………31
3.1.2 Method………………………………………………………………………31
3.1.2.1 Participants……………………………………………...…………31
3.1.2.2 Procedure………………………………………………………….32
3.1.3 Results and Discussion………………………………………...…………….33
3.2 Summary of Chapter ……………………………………………………………38
Chapter 4
Considering the Effectiveness of Recasts on Japanese High School Learners’ Learning with
Intermediate English proficiency………………………………………………………......40
4.1 Study 2………………………………………………………………………….40
4.1.1 Purpose of the Study…………………………………………………..40
4.1.2 Method……………………………………………………………………..41
4.1.2.1 Context of the Study and Participants……………………...……41
4.1.2.2 Procedure………………………………………………………...41
4.1.2.3 Data Analysis…………………………………………………….42
4.1.2.3.1 Error Types……………………………………...……42
4.1.2.3.2 Degree of Difference…………………………..….….44
4.1.2.3.3 Lengths ………………………………………………45
4.1.2.4 Issues in Analyzing the Effectiveness of Recast………………..46
4.1.2.4.1 Acknowledgement……………………………………46
4.1.2.4.2 Later Incorporation…………………………………..47
4.1.2.4.3 No Opportunity………………………………………47
4.1.2.4.4 Preferred Recasts…..…………………………………48
4.1.2.5 Measuring the Effectiveness of Recasts……………………...….49
4.1.3 Results…………...………………………………………………………...50
4.1.3.1 Error Types………………………………………………………51
4.1.3.2 Degree of Difference …………………………………………….51
4.1.3.3 Length……………………………………………………………52
4.1.4 Discussion…………………………………………………………… .52
4.1.5 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………56
4.2 Study 3……………………………………………………………………………..58
4.2.1 Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………...58
4.2.2 Method …………………………………………………………………...58
4.2.2.1 Participants and Procedure……………………………………...58
4.2.2.2 Data Analysis…..………………………………………………58
4.2.3 Results…………………………………………………………………….60
4.2.4 Discussion and Conclusion ………………………………………………63
4.3 Study 4……………………………………………………………………………..65
4.3.1 Purpose of the Study……………………………………………………...65
4.3.2 Method……………………………………………………………………65
4.3.2.1 Participants and Procedure……………………………………...65
4.3.2.2 Data Collection and Analysis…………………………………...66
4.3.3 Results and Discussion……………………………………………………68
4.3.3.1 To What Extent do Students Repair Their Errors
After Recasts? (RQ1)………………………………………….. 68
4.3.3.2 What Type of Recasts, Which Potentially Hinder
the Optimal Effect of Recasts,
Does the Native Speaker Provide? (RQ2)……………………..68
4.3.3.2.1 No Opportunity……………………………………..69
4.3.3.2.2 Preferred Recast….………………………………..70
4.3.3.3 Is Explicit Corrective Feedback More Obstructive
Than Recasts are
by Causing Communication Breakdowns? (RQ3)…………...…73
4.3.4 Conclusion……………………………………………………………….77
4.4 Summary of Chapter 4……………………………...………………………… …….78
Chapter 5
Measuring the Effects of Recasts on Noticing Through Stimulated Recall……………….......79
5.1 Study 5……………………………………………………………………………80
5.1.1 Purpose of the Study………………………………………………………80
5.1.2 Method…………………………………………………………………….82
5.1.2.1 Participants………………………………………………………82
5.1.2.2 Procedure………………………………………………………..83
5.1.2.3 Recasts…………………………………………………………..84
5.1.2.4 Stimulated Recall………………………………………………..85
5.1.2.5 Data Analyses……………………………………………………86
5.1.2.5.1 Coding………………………………………………...86
5.1.2.5.2 Statistical Analyses……………………………………89
5.1.3 Results and Discussion……………………………………………………89
5.1.3.1 Did Noticing Occur When Learners 1) Repaired,
2) Repeated the Same Error or Made Another Error,
3) Failed to Respond to the Recasts,
4) Acknowledged the recasts? (RQ1)……………………………...89
5.1.3.2 What are Learners’ Perceptions of Recasts? (RQ2)………………..93
5.1.3.2.1 Perception of Recasts……………………………….93
5.1.3.2.2 Noticing Recasts…………………………………… 94
5.1.3.2.3 Attending to Meaning……………………………….96
5.1.3.2.4 Attending to Other Linguistic Aspects……………...97
5.1.3.2.5 No Understanding………………………………….. 98
5.1.3.2.6 No Memory……..………………………………….99
5.1.3.2.7 Other……………………………………..………….99
5.1.3.3 Cases of Repair Without Noticing
and No Uptake with Noticing….………………………………100
5.1.3.3.1 Repair Without Noticing…………………………100
5.1.3.3.2 No Uptake with Noticing……..………………….101
5.1.4 Conclusion………………………………………………………………103
5.2 Study 6………………………………………………………………………….103
5.2.1 Purpose of the Study………………………………………………… 103
5.2.2 Method……………………………………………………………….. 105
5.2.2.1 Participants and Procedure……………………………………105
5.2.2.2 Data Analysis………………………………………………… 105
5.2.2.2.1 Error Types………………………………………..105
5.2.2.2.2 Degree of difference………………………………105
5.2.2.2.3 Lengths……………………………………………106
5.2.2.3 Noticing………………………………………………………106
5.2.2.4 Statistical analyses………………………………………... 106
5.2.3 Results and Discussion………………………………………………..106
5.2.3.1 How Effective Are Recasts for High Intermediate–level
Japanese University Students’ Noticing
According to Error types?..........………………………………107
5.2.3.2 How Effective Are Recasts for High Intermediate–level
Japanese University Students’ Noticing
According to the Degree of Differences?.................................... 111
5.2.3.3 How Effective are Recasts for High Intermediate–level
Japanese University Students’ Noticing
According to the Length?............................................................112
5.2.4 Conclusion…………………………………………………………..…113
5.3 Summary of Chapter 5………………………………………………………....114
Chapter 6 Written Recasts……………………………………………………115
6.1 Study 7……………………………………………………………………… 115
6.1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………115
6.1.2 Background…………………………………………………………….116
6.1.2.1 Accuracy…………………………………………...…………..116
6.1.2.2 Fluency…………………………………………………………117
6.1.2.3 The Relation Between Accuracy and Fluency…………………118
6.1.3 Purposes of the Study and Research Questions……………………….118
6.1.4 Method……………………………………………………………….119
6.1.4.1 Participants…………………………………………………..119
6.1.4.2 Procedures…………………………………………………...119
6.1.4.2.1 Training Session…………………………………….119
6.1.4.2.2 Experiment…………………………………….......120
6.1.4.2.3 Scoring and Analysis………………………………..121
6.1.5 Results and Discussions………………………………………………122
6.1.5.1 What Kinds of Relations are Observed Between Accuracy
and Fluency in Writing?................................................................122
6.1.5.2 To What Extent Does the Direction Affect Students’ Performances
in Writing?.......................................................................................122
6.1.6 Discussion…………………………………………………………….123
6.1.7 Conclusion …………………………………………………………...125
6.2 Study 8……………………………………….…………..……………………….126
6.2.1 Purpose of the Study………………………………………………….127
6.2.2 Method ……………………………………………………………….128
6.2.2.1 The Research Context……………………………………..128
6.2.2.2 Participants…………………………………………………128
6.2.2.3 Procedures………………………………………………….129
6.2.2.4 Analysis…………………………………………………….130
6.2.2.4.1 Classification of Written Recasts………………130
6.2.2.4.2 Writing Accuracy, Fluency and Complexity……134
6.2.2.4.3 Questionnaire Results
and Students’ Writing Performance……………..135
6.2.3 Results………………………………………………………………136
6.2.3.1 Success Rates of Recasts According to Types……………...136
6.2.3.2 Accuracy, Fluency and Complexity…………………………139
6.2.3.3 Questionnaire Results……………………………………..140
6.2.4 Discussion……………………………………………………… ..141
6.2.4.1 Success Rates of Recasts According to Types….……….141
6.2.4.2 Accuracy, Fluency and Complexity………………………. 143
6.2.4.3 Questionnaire Results……………………………………...145
6.2.5 Conclusion…………………………………………………………148
6.3 Study 9…………………………………………………………………………148
6.3.1 Purpose of the Study….……………………………………… .148
6.3.2 Method…………………………………………………………… .149
6.3.2.1 Participants and Procedure………………………………...149
6.3.2.2 Data Analysis……………………………………………...149
6.3.3 Results…………………………………………………………… ..153
6.3.4 Discussion and Conclusion………………………………………..156
6.4 Summary of Chapter 6………………………………………………………...157
Chapter 7
Examining Self-initiated Modified Output Attempt
by Japanese High School Students with low English Proficiency…………...159
7.1 Study 10………………………………………………………………………...159
7.1.1 Purposes of the Study……………………………………………...…….159
7.1.2 Method …………………………………………………………………..160
7.1.2.1 Participants………………………………………...……...........161
7.1.2.2 Procedure……………………………………………………….161
7.1.3 Results and Discussion……………………………………………..163
7.1.3.1 Does Self-initiation Frequently Occur During the Communicative
Activities Selected for the Study?.................................................163
7.1.3.2 What are the Factors That Hinder Self-initiation?.......................167
7.1.4 Pedagogical Implications…………………………………………...…170
7.2 Summary of Chapter 7……………………………………………………………173
Chapter 8
Examining Self-initiated Self-repair Attempts
by Japanese High School Learners with Intermediate English Proficiency
While Speaking English……………………………………………………………………174
8.1 Study 11………………………………………………………………………...174
8.1.1 Purposes of the Study..............................................................................174
8.1.2 Method…………………………………………………………………175
8.1.2.1 Participants and Procedure……………………...…………...175
8.1.2.2 Data Collection and Analysis ……………………………….175
8.1.3 Results………………………………………………………………….178
8.1.3.1 Is the Success Rate of Self-initiated Self-repair High?............178
8.1.3.2 Is There any Difference in the Occurrence of Self-initiated
Self-repair According to the Types of Triggers?.....................179
8.1.3.3 Is There any Difference in the Success Rate
According to the Types of Triggers?.......................................180
8.1.4 Discussion………………………………………………………………182
8.1.4.1 Success Rate of Self-initiated Self-repair …………………..182
8.1.4.2 Occurrence of Self-initiated Self-repair
According to the Types of Triggers ………………………...183
8.1.4.3 Success Rate According to the Types of Triggers…………..186
8.1.4.4 Occurrence and Success Rate of Error Repairs
According to the Types……………………………………188
8.1.5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………191
8.2 Study 12…………………………………………………………………………192
8.2.1 Purpose of the Study………………………………………………... 192
8.2.2 Method…………………………………………………………………193
8.2.2.1 Participants and Procedure………………………………..193
8.2.2.2 Analysis………………………………………………...........193
8.2.3 Results………………………………………………………………….195
8.2.3.1 Overall Results ………………………………………………195
8.2.3.2 Is the Occurrence of Self-initiated Self-repair Influenced
by Grammatical Difficulty of Triggers?.................................196
8.2.3.3 Is the Success Rate of Self-initiated Self-repair Influenced
by Grammatical Difficulty of Triggers?.................................197
8.2.4 Discussion and Conclusion…………………………………………….200
8.3 Summary of Chapter 8………………………………………………………...203
Chapter 9 Conclusion………………………………………………………………204
9.1 Summary of Findings…………………………………………………………204
9.1.1 Effects of Recasts on Japanese Learners…………………………….204
9.1.1.1 Recasts Given to Lower-Level Japanese
High School Learners…………………………….……...204
9.1.1.2 Recasts Given to Low Intermediate-Level
Japanese High School Learners…………………………..205
9.1.1.3 Noticing…………………………………………………..205
9.1.1.4 Written Recasts……….…………………………………205
9.1.2 Self-initiated Self-repair……………………………………………..206
9.2 Implications………………………………………………………………….206
9.3 Limitations…………………………………………………………………...208
9.4 Future Research………………………………………………………………209
References…………………………………………………………………………..212
Appendices……………………………………………………………………………230
Appendix A: Play-acting……………………………………………………………230
Appendix B: Skeleton dialogue……………………………………………………..230
Appendix C: Interview………………………………………………………...……231
Appendix D: Questionnaires……………………………………….………..……...232
List of Tables
Table 2.1 Definitions of recasts in L2 studies…………………………….………..…15
Table 3.1 The number of recasts, with or without corrective purpose……….…….....34
Table 3.2 Outcome of recast…………………………………………………...……...36
Table 3.3 Recasts with corrective purpose, number of changes………………………37
Table 4.1 Number of recasts, successful moves and success rate by error type….51
Table 4.2 Number of recasts, successful moves and success rate
by degree of change……………………………………………………….52
Table 4.3 Number of recasts, successful moves and success rates
by Length of Recast………………………………………………………..52
Table 4.4 Categorization A (early development or easy structures)
The number of recasts, successful moves and success rates……………….61
Table 4.5 Categorization A (late development or difficult structures)
The number of recasts, successful moves and success rates……………….62
Table 4.6 Categorization B (early development or easy structures)
The number of recasts, successful moves and success rates………………62
Table 4.7 Categorization B (late development or difficult structures)
The number of recasts, successful moves and success rates ………………63
Table 4.8 Definitions and examples of corrective feedback……………….………….67
Table 4.9 Number and percentage of recasts and repair………………………………68
Table 4.10 Number of explicit feedback and communication breakdowns…...……….76
Table 5.1 Breakdown of the students………………………………………...……….83
Table 5.2 Sequence of procedures ……………………………………………………84
Table 5.3 Uptake types and definitions……………………………………………….87
Table 5.4 Coding of learners’ perceptions and definitions…………..………….……88
Table 5.5 Raw frequencies of repair, needs-repair, no uptake and acknowledgement.90
Table 5.6 Raw frequencies of repair, needs-repair, no uptake
and acknowledgement with the frequencies of noticing and no noticing….90
Table 5.7 Percentages of noticing of repair, no uptake and acknowledgement ………91
Table 5.8 Perception to recasts………………………………...……………………...94
Table 5.9 Perception other than noticing………………………………………………94
Table 5.10 Number of recasts, noticing,
no noticing, and success rate measured by noticing (Error Type)……...107
Table 5.11 Number of recasts, noticing, no noticing, and success rate
measured by noticing (number of changes) ………………………...……111
Table 5.12 Number of recasts, noticing, no noticing, and success rate
measured by noticing (length)……………………………………...…..112
Table 6.1 Directions given to the groups…………………………………………….121
Table 6.2 Pearson’s correlation coefficients of accuracy with fluency………..……122
Table 6.3 Descriptive statistics of accuracy and fluency in the writing……………123
Table 6.4 Tukey’s HSD test differences across the three groups…………………..123
Table 6.5 Number of recasts, repairs, failed revisions, avoided revisions
and success rates by error types ………………………………………….136
Table 6.6 Number of single change recasts, multiple change recasts,
repair, failed revisions, avoided revisions and success rates……….…….136
Table 6.7 Number of long and short recasts, repair, failed revisions,
avoided revisions and success rates………………………………………137
Table 6.8 Mean scores and SDs of accuracy, fluency and complexity
in the first and second drafts……………………………………………...139
Table 6.9 Pearson’s correlation coefficients of accuracy with fluency……………...140
Table 6.10 Average scores and correlations with the success rate…………………....140
Table 6.11 Average scores of Q1 and 2 combined and correlations
with the success rates…………………………………………………….141
Table 6.12 Categorization A (early development or easy structures)
The number of recasts, successful moves and success rates………………154
Table 6.13 Categorization A (late development or difficult structures)
The number of recasts, successful moves and success rates………………154
Table 6.14 Categorization B (early development or easy structures)
The number of recasts, successful moves and success rates………………154
Table 6.15 Categorization B (late development or difficult structures)
The number of recasts, successful moves and success rates ……………...155
Table 7.1 The number of conversations with successful
and unsuccessful self-initiation…………………………………………..167
Table 8.1 Success rate of self-initiated self repair attempt…………………………..179
Table 8.2 The occurrence of self-initiated self-repair
according to the types of triggers………………………………………...180
Table 8.3 The success rates according to the types of triggers………………………180
Table 8.4 The occurrence and success rate of error repair according to the types…..181
Table 8.5 The occurrence and success rates…………………………………...…….182
Table 8.6 Occurrence of self-initiated self-repair categorized by the grammatical
difficulties of triggers ……………………………………………………196
Table 8.7 The numbers of attempts, successful moves and failed moves
of early developmental or easy items (Categorization A)………….…….197
Table 8.8 The numbers of attempts, successful moves and failed moves
of late developmental or difficult items (Categorization A)……………...198
Table 8.9 The numbers of attempts, successful moves and failed moves
of early developmental or easy items (Categorization B)…………..……198
Table 8.10 The numbers of attempts, successful moves and failed moves
of late developmental or difficult items (Categorization B)……...............199
Table 8.11 The numbers of grammatical errors that were not self-repaired…………..200
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
It is well known that English language instructions in Japan have been mainly
comprehension and translation-based since the Meiji era and it has focused on written
materials. Admitting the importance of input obtained through reading, we need to keep good
balance between input and output by providing students with more opportunities for output as
a focus in second language teaching. Ellis (1997a) criticized the situation in Japanese English
education by mentioning that much of English teaching was taken up with the teaching of
grammar and many of Japanese students left school with no procedural ability to
communicate in English. I’m afraid that there are still situations in which students are
supposed to sit still to listen to teachers in order to gain knowledge about English without
being given opportunities to use English. In order to develop students’ fundamental and
practical communication skills, improving students’ grammatical knowledge, we need to
introduce activities which require students to produce output in English.
“Foreign language activity” at elementary school is now compulsory in the fifth and sixth
grades, and the government’s council agreed a proposal for university reforms and the
globalization of education on May 22, 2013, including a plan to introduce English-language
courses in the fifth and sixth grades. In high school, teachers are now supposed to conduct
their English lessons mainly in English to develop students’ communication abilities. English
language education in Japan is going through a major transitory period these days. Most of
2
the Japanese junior and senior high school teachers of English also know the importance of
teaching English not just as a subject but as a language and some of them actually are
working further their efforts to make their teaching more communicative in order to improve
students’ communicative skill or communicative competence.
In English class conducted basically in English that utilizes output-based activities,
interactions between teachers and students or among students themselves naturally occur. In
the early version of the Interaction Hypothesis, Long (1983) attached importance to the role
played by meaning negotiation through interaction in providing learners with comprehensible
input. In his more recent Interaction Hypothesis (1996) he suggests that meaning negotiation
also has another role: by being given negative feedback by means of recasts and by being
given opportunities to reformulate their own erroneous utterances to be more target-like,
learners can acquire the target language. The main topics of my thesis research are recasts and
self-initiated self-repair whose crucial roles are stated in Long’s Interaction Hypothesis
(1996).
In second language acquisition (SLA) research, corrective feedback has been one of the
foci and studied in English as a second language (ESL) as well as a foreign language (EFL)
settings. The recast is one of the types of corrective feedback which has been widely studied
because of its potential for enhancing second or foreign language learning. However, most of
the previous studies on recasts were conducted in ESL environments in which learners have a
need for communication in and natural exposure to the target language or in EFL settings
with relatively highly motivated proficient learners. Few studies have examined recasts in this
Japanese EFL learning environment in which learners do not have an actual need for
communication in or exposure to English. In addition, most of the learners are learning
English as one of school subjects for entrance examinations rather than a tool for
communication, focusing on accuracy or gaining knowledge about English. It is doubtful
3
whether we could apply even a rich store of knowledge derived from recast research
conducted elsewhere into the teaching in Japan. It is definitely needed to investigate recasts in
the very setting of the Japanese EFL learning environment. Moreover, no studies have
examined the effects of written corrective feedback in the form of recasts here. It is
worthwhile to shed light on written recasts as well.
Self-initiated self-repair can be a cognitively higher level activity in noticing the gap than
showing repair after being provided feedback such as recasts (e.g., Egi, 2010), because
learners themselves have to initiate to repair their own erroneous utterances. In addition, it
occurs constantly and prevalently as a normal learning/teaching strategy (Shehadeh, 2001). In
Japanese senior high schools, classes average around 40 students, making it practically
impossible for teachers to have frequent one-on-one interactions providing students with
corrective feedback. Thus, in many cases, students are left to converse with other students in
the L2, being asked to perform communicative activities without direct oversight by the
teacher. In the situation, students are ideally notice their own insufficient utterances in order
to carry out self-initiated self-repair. It is definitely important for Japanese learners to
self-initiated self-repair their own previous insufficient utterances. However, few studies have
examined the phenomenon of self-initiated self-repair in the Japanese EFL learning
environment, either, which motivated me to explore into this topic.
1.2 Organization of the Thesis
The present thesis consists of 9 chapters including this introductory chapter. In chapter 2,
at first, crucial theories in language acquisition that are related to this thesis are presented,
followed by the literature relevant to recasts studies and research on self-initiated self-repair.
Learning theories associated with recasts and self-initiated self-repair as well as studies
investigating variables that can have impact on the effect of recasts and self-initiated
4
self-repair are reviewed in the chapter. Issues and problems of recasts and self-initiated
self-repair, which are the motivations for the present thesis, are also reviewed.
Chapter 3 empirically investigates the extent to which learners would notice their
teacher’s recasts in the context of dyadic interaction and how often recasts would be provided
by the teacher adequately. Specifically, the study in this chapter focuses on examining the
actual effects of recasts on low-level Japanese high school students while they are performing
interactive communicative activities
Previous research indicates that recasts are more helpful for high and intermediate learners
than for low-level learners (e.g., Philp, 2003). Chapter 4 presents three studies which
examined the effects of recasts on intermediate high school learners, who are more proficient
and motivated in learning English than students who participated in the study in chapter 3.
Chapter 5 presents two studies which empirically examine learners’ noticing of recasts
through stimulated recall interview. Stimulated recall, which is a retrospective method to elicit
the thought processes involved in carrying out an activity (Gass & Mackey, 2000), can more
precisely probe learners’ perception of recasts and the extent to which recasts can engage
learners in a cognitive comparison, or noticing (Ellis, 1994). In the first study, the relation
between learners’ noticing and their repair, and their perceptions of recasts are examined. The
second study focuses on the effects of recast features on noticing.
Chapter 6 presents three empirical studies. The first study in the chapter examines the
relation between accuracy and fluency in Japanese high school students’ writing. The findings
of the study are some of the motivations to conduct the second study which explores into the
effects of written recasts on university students’ essay writing: the development of accuracy,
fluency and complexity from the first draft to the second one; variations of the relation
between accuracy and fluency; and how effectively written recasts can lead students to correct
their errors in the revision. The third study focuses on the relationship between the
5
effectiveness of written recasts and the grammatical difficulty of students’ errors to which
written recasts are given.
Chapters 7 and 8 compose the second phase of the study in which studies on students’
self-initiated self-repair are reported. Chapter 7 empirically examines self-initiated self-repair
attempts by lower-level high school students, with the specific purposes of examining the
frequency of self-initiated self-repair during the communicative activities, and finding out the
factors that hinder self-initiation.
Chapter 8 reports two studies which investigate self-initiated self-repair attempts and their
effects on Japanese high school learners with intermediate English proficiency. The first study
focuses on the occurrences and the success rates of self-initiated self-repair and the
relationships with the types of triggers (students’ original errors), and the second study in the
chapter specifically examines the effects of grammatical difficulty of triggers on the
occurrences and the success rates of self-initiated self-repair.
Finally, Chapter 9 concludes the thesis. Reviewing the preceding chapters, this chapter
provides a general summary, and theoretical and pedagogical implications for English
classroom. After several crucial limitations of the present thesis are summarized, suggestions
for future research are also discussed.
6
Chapter 2
Literature Review
In this chapter, crucial theories in second language acquisition that are related to this
thesis are reviewed. Next, the findings obtained by previous studies on recasts and
self-initiated self-repair are reviewed. Some issues on those studies are reviewed and
discussed so that we could identify problems on them as well as a need of study on this area
in this Japanese EFL learning environment.
2.1 Second Language Acquisition Theories
2.1.1 Input Hypothesis
Krashen (1981, 1985) claims that language acquisition is input-driven, meaning that
acquisition is based primarily on what we hear and understand. His overall sketch of
acquisition in the Input Hypothesis is one of the most influential theories claiming that input
is essential to language acquisition. Krashen (1985) defines comprehensible input as input
that is heard /read and that is slightly ahead of a learner’s current state of grammatical
knowledge. Krashen defines a learner’s current state of knowledge as i and the next stage as
i+1. The input hypothesis argues that input must contain i+1 to be crucial for language
acquisition, but it need not contain only i+1, and that if the learner understands the input and
there is enough of it, i+1 will automatically be provided. That is, “if input is understood, and
there is enough of it, necessary grammar is automatically provided and that the language
teacher need not attempt deliberately to teach the next structure along the natural order-it will
7
be provided in just the right quantities and automatically reviewed if the student receives a
sufficient amount of comprehensible input”(1985, p. 2). As for speaking, he states, “Speaking
is a result of acquisition and not its cause. Speech cannot be taught directly but “emerges” on
its own as a result of building competence via comprehensible input” (1985, p. 2). Krashen
(1994) has concluded that language acquisition is input-driven and learners acquire second
languages incidentally and subconsciously when they are able to comprehend the input they
are exposed to.
Researchers have criticized the Input Hypothesis. For, example, Gass & Selinker (1994)
mention that the hypothesis itself is not specific as to how we should define levels of
knowledge and that there is no way to know what a sufficient quantity of the appropriate
input is. They also add the question that “we may be able to understand something that is
beyond our grammatical knowledge, but how does that translate into grammatical
acquisition?” (p. 150). Chaudron (1985) points out that the hypothesis lacks a sufficiently
detailed psycholinguistic account of the perceptual mechanism of what constitutes i+1. He
also notes that we may assume it refers to all level of L2 forms because Krashen leaves the
linguistic scope of the hypothesis unclear.
However, there is no lack of theories or hypotheses which regard input as a precondition
for learning. (e.g., Carroll, 1999, 2000; Chaudron, 1985; Gass, 1997; MacWhinney, 1987;
Robinson, 1995; Schmidt, 1990; Sharwood Smith, 1986, 1993; Simard & Wong, 2001;
Tomlin & Villa, 1994; VanPatten, 1996; White, 1987), and it is clear that the role of input in
the process of second/foreign language learning is crucial.
2.1.2 Output Hypothesis
In Canadian immersion programs, learners receive a rich source of comprehensible input,
and these L2 programs are thought to be among the most successful. However, some research
8
on these programs has shown evidence that indicates that merely providing a large amount of
comprehensible input is not enough for the learners to attain a high level of L2 proficiency
(Harley, 1993).
Swain (1985) argued that learners displayed numerous grammatical errors in their L2
because they were actually engaged in a small amount of production. By observing the
programs, Swain concluded that although comprehensible input was invaluable to the
acquisition process, it was not sufficient for learners to fully develop their L2 proficiency. She
argued that if learners were to be fluent as well as accurate in the target language what they
needed was not only comprehensible input but also comprehensible output. She claimed that
“producing the target language may be the trigger that forces the learner to pay attention to
the means of expression needed in order to successfully convey learners’ own intended
meaning” (Swain, 1985, p. 249).
Swain (1993, 1995) has extended her first output hypothesis mentioning three functions.
The first function is that output has a hypothesis-testing function. By producing output,
learners are potentially testing their hypothesis about the target language, and by being
pushed to produce output in the process of negotiation of meaning, they can produce more
accurate target language. Second, output has a metalinguistic function. Swain (1995) claims,
“as learners reflect upon their own target language use, their output serves a metalinguistic
function, enabling them to control and internalize linguistic knowledge” (p.126). She means
that output may force learners to move from semantic processing to syntactic processing. As
Krashen (1982) has suggested that, “in many cases, we do not utilize syntax in understanding
– we often get the message with a combination of vocabulary, or lexical information plus
extra-linguistic information” (p. 66), it is possible to comprehend input to get a message
without a syntactic analysis of that input. According to Swain (1995), if the contexts are such
that the language produced by learners serves some genuine communicative function, output
9
serves the function of deepening the students’ awareness of forms, rules, and form-function
relationship.
Thirdly, output has a noticing function as the following.
[I]n producing the target language (vocally or subvocally) learners may notice a
gap between what they want to say and what they can say, leading them to
recognize what they do not know, or know only partially, about the target
language. In other words, under some circumstances, the activity of producing
the target language may prompt second language learners to consciously
recognize some of their linguistic problems; it may bring to their attention
something they need to discover about their L2 (Swain, 1995, pp.125-126).
She adds that noticing gaps “may trigger a cognitive process which might generate linguistic
knowledge that is new for the learner, or that consolidates their existing knowledge” (Swain,
1995, p.126).
Swain and Lapkin (1995) mention one more function of output, that is, output enhances
fluency through practice. Skehan (1995) also has the same view, and notes that fluency, the
capacity of the learners to exercise their system to communicate meaning in real time,
requires learners to exercise their memory-based system by accessing and deploying chunks
of language.
Gass (1988) insists on the importance of comprehensible output in testing hypothesis by
mentioning that this creates a feedback loop from output into intake component, where
hypothesis formation and testing is considered to take place.
2.1.3 Interaction Hypothesis
10
The role of comprehension in second language acquisition has been of prime importance
in much SLA research and theory (Loschky, 1994). The Input Hypothesis (Krashen, 1985)
and the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1983, 1996) are the most influential SLA hypotheses
concerned with the role of comprehension in SLA.
In the early version of the Interaction Hypothesis, Long (1983) attached importance to the
role played by meaning negotiation through interaction in providing learners with
comprehensible input. He argued that comprehensible input is necessary for learners to
acquire a foreign or second language, and that modifications which take place during the
meaning negotiations to solve communication problems can contribute to the establishment
of comprehensible input. In this initial Interaction Hypothesis, Long (1983) mentions that
comprehensible input that arises when the less competent learner provides feedback on
his/her lack of comprehension assists acquisition. This suggests that we should create a
situation where the less competent learner responds to the more competent learner or speaker
to comprehend input. The hypothesis views language acquisition as totally input-driven, as
does Krashen’s input hypothesis (1985). However, in his recent Interaction Hypothesis (1996)
he suggests that meaning negotiation also has another role: by being given negative feedback
by means of recasts and by being given opportunities to reformulate their own erroneous
utterances to be more target-like, learners can acquire the target language. Ellis (2003)
summarizes the Interaction Hypothesis as follows:
The Interaction Hypothesis then suggests a number of ways in which interaction
can contribute to language acquisition. In general term, it posits more
opportunities for negotiation (meaning and content) there are, the more likely
acquisition is. More specifically, it suggests: (1) that when interactional
modifications lead to comprehensible input via the decomposition and
11
segmenting of input, acquisition is facilitated; (2) that when learners receive
feedback, acquisition is facilitated; (3) that when learners are pushed to
reformulate their own utterances, acquisition is promoted (p. 80).
Interaction provides both input and output, and thus it has been accepted that there is clear
evidence for a link between interaction and language learning (e.g., Mackey & Goo, 2007).
2.1.4 Noticing Hypothesis
Krashen (1982, 1985) has maintained that learners acquire a second language in a largely
subconscious process, that is, learners acquire second languages incidentally and
subconsciously when they are able to comprehend the input they are exposed to, and
conscious learning serves merely to monitor or edit the form of utterances produced by the
acquired knowledge.
However, Schmidt (1990) has argued, “subliminal language learning is impossible, and
that noticing is the necessary and sufficient condition for converting input to intake” (p.129).
According to his Noticing Hypothesis (1990), nothing is learned without noticing. Schmidt
(1990, 1994,) has claimed that attention to input is a conscious process and that attention,
noticing, and noticing-the-gap are essential processes in L2 acquisition. That is, for a learner
to acquire some feature of language, it is not enough for the learner to be exposed to it
through comprehensible input. The learner must notice what it is in that input that makes
meaning. Schmidt has introduced his own experience as a learner of Portuguese in Brazil to
demonstrate the importance of attention by showing that almost all new forms that appeared
in his spontaneous speech were consciously attended to previously in the input (Schmidt &
Frota, 1986).
Robinson (1995) has defined noticing as “detection plus rehearsal in short-term memory,
12
prior to encoding in long term memory” (p. 296). He mentions that activation in short-term
memory must exceed a certain level before it becomes a part of awareness, identifying
noticing with what is “both detected and then further activated following the allocation and
attentional resources from a central executive”(p.297). According to Robinson, resources may
call for either data-driven processing (simple maintenance rehearsal of instances of input in
memory) or conceptually-driven processing (elaborative rehearsal and the activation of
schemata from long-term memory). That is to say, Robinson views awareness as the
“function of the interpretation of the nature of the encoding and retrieval processes required
by the task” (p. 301). He not only views awareness as critical to noticing but also
distinguishes noticing from simple detection. By assigning simple detection without
awareness, a less crucial role in the encoding of information into short-term memory in L2
acquisition than that espoused by Tomlin and Villa (1994), Robinson concurs with Schmidt’s
Noticing Hypothesis which insists that no learning can occur without awareness at the level
of noticing.
2.2 Oral Recasts Studies
2.2.1 Definitions of Recasts
As one particular type of corrective feedback, recasts have been receiving considerable
attention (e.g., Egi, 2007; Ellis & Sheen, 2006; Iwashita, 2003; Long, 1996; Lyster & Ranta,
1997; Lyster, 1998a, 1998b). Lyster and Ranta (1997) defined the recast as reformulation of
all or part of the students’ utterances. The following is an example of a recast from my study
(Sato, 2013a).
Example 1
Student1: I like childs very much.
13
Teacher: Oh, you like children very much.←recast
Student 1: Yes. I like children very much, so I wanted to teach them how to play the piano.
Teacher: Did you actually do it?
In the example, the teacher provided a recast, which was a reformulation of the student’s
incorrect utterance. Immediately after the student noticed the recast, she repaired it and they
continued talking. However, there are multiple definitions of recasts (Loewen, 2009): in the
previous studies on recasts, recasts have been defined differently by different researchers.
Table 2.1 shows some of definitions proposed by L2 researchers.
Although there are subtle differences among definitions introduced in Table, 2.1, most of
them include the reformulation of a learners’ utterances by teachers while maintaining the
semantic aspect of the message. Long (2007) redefined a corrective recast as a reformulation
of learners’ preceding utterance in which non-target-like item(s) is/are corrected to target
language form(s) while the interlocutors’ focus is not on language but on meaning. In this
study, following Long (2007), recasts are operationalized as the target language provided by
either a NS or a NNS teacher, immediately after learner’s erroneous utterances, and intended
for either corrective purposes, meaning negotiation, or both.
Recasts are, in general, considered as implicit corrective feedback reformulating all or
part of ill-formed utterances provided by teachers without changing the central meaning
(Iwashita, 2003; Long, 1996; Lyster, 1998a, 1998b). However, Ellis and Sheen (2006) argue
that when the language is treated not for message conveyance but as an object—or the recasts
are not communicatively motivated but didactically motivated—the recasts cannot be implicit
but explicit. Analyzing the recasts from learners’ perspective, they also argue that when
learners establish metalinguistic awareness from the recast this is due to their perceiving the
recast as explicit correction. They conclude that recasts should not necessarily be regarded as
14
implicit but be taken as more or less implicit or explicit depending on how recasts are given
by the teacher and how they are perceived by the students. As for the roles of positive
evidence and negative evidence of recasts, Ellis and Sheen (2006) argue that if learners have
no awareness of the corrective intention of the recasts they can be considered positive
evidence, and if they interpret recasts as corrective they can be considered negative evidence.
As there are various forms and functions of recasts, it can be argued that whether they are
implicit or explicit/negative or positive is often unclear. Thus, in this study, recasts are
regarded as a type of corrective feedback regardless whether it is implicit or explicit / positive
or negative evidence.
15
Table 2.1: Definitions of recasts in L2 studies
Definitions
Long (1996) “Utterances that rephrase a child’s utterance by changing one or more sentence
components…while still referring to its central meaning” (p.434).
Long et al. (1998)
“Corrective recasts: responses which, although communicatively oriented and
focused on meaning rather than on form…incidentally reformulating all of part of
a learner’s utterance.”
“Providing relevant morphosyntactic information that was obligatory but was
either missing or wrongly supplied, in the learner’s rendition, while retaining its
central meaning” (p. 358).
Doughty and Valera
(1998)
“Grammatical information contained in corrective reformulations of children’s
utterances that preserve the child’s intended meaning” (p. 25).
Ayoun (2001) “Verbal corrective feedback provided during the course of an interaction, in
naturalistic or instructional settings” (p. 227).
Nicholas et al. (2001) “The teachers’ correct restatement of learners’ incorrectly formed utterance” (p.
720).
Braidi (2002)
“Incorporating the content words immediately preceding incorrect NNS
utterance…changing and correcting the utterance in some way (e.g., phonological,
syntactic, morphological, or lexical)” (p. 20).
Iwashita (2003) “Recasts are utterances that reformulate an interlocutor’s utterance without
changing its meaning” (p.15).
Lyster (2004) “A well-formed reformulation of a learners’ nontarget utterance with the original
meaning intact”(p403).
Sheen (2004) “Recasts refer to the reformulation of the whole or part of learner’s erroneous
utterance without changing its meaning” (P. 278).
McDonough &
Mackey (2006)
“Recasts are more target-like ways of saying what a learner has already said”
(p. 694).
Lyster & Mori (2006) “The teacher implicitly reformulates all or part of the student’s utterance” (p.271).
16
2.2.2 Uptake, Repair and Needs-repair
Uptake is learners’ immediate response that constitutes a reaction to a recast (Lyster &
Ranta, 1997). In Example 1 above, the teacher provided a recast, and after the student noticed
the recast, she repaired it and they continued talking. As is seen in this example when the
learner successfully corrected the original error after the recast, it is categorized as repair in
the previous recasts studies (e.g., Lyster& Ranta, 1997). In the following example from the
current study, the student failed to correct his error after a recast is given.
Example 2
Student2: I was belonged to the ESS club.
Teacher: You belonged to the club? ←recast
Student 2: Yes. I was. I had a lot of friends.
In a situation when repair is still needed in learner’s response or the learner repeated the same
error or made another error after the recast, as is shown in Example 2, uptake is coded as
needs-repair in the previous studies.
2.2.3 Effects of Recasts on Learning
2.2.3.1 Advantages of Recasts
There are convincing rationales for believing that recasts facilitate acquisition. Farrar
(1992) has pointed out the roles of recasts in L1: they reformulate a syntactic element; they
expand a syntactic element or semantic element or both; the utterance in the form of the recast
is semantically contingent; and recasts immediately follow the learner’s utterance.
A number of previous experimental studies have provided positive reports on the impact
of recasts in L2 acquisition as well. Loewen and Philp (2006) examined the provision and the
17
effectiveness of recasts with adult learners of English as a second language classroom
throughout 17 hours of interaction. Their study compared the incidence of recasts, elicitation
and metalinguistic feedback, and the learner responses, or successful uptake, termed as repair,
after these types of feedback. The results revealed that recasts were widely used and
beneficial at least 50% of the time. Long, Inagaki, and Ortega (1998) found in their study with
L2 Japanese and Spanish learners that recasts were more effective in achieving at least
short-term improvements with a previously unknown L2 structure than preemptive positive
input.
One rationale for using recasts is that they are not as intrusive as explicit correction, which
can disturb the flow of communication, and thus can enable learners to integrate forms as the
learners continue to speak (Doughty, 2001; Lyster, et al., 2013; Yoshida, 2010). Lyster (2007)
states that recasts help maintain the flow of communication, keeping learners’ attention on
content and enabling them to participate in interaction in which their linguistic abilities can
exceed their current level.
Regarding teachers’ preference for recasts compared to other types of corrective feedback,
Yoshida (2008) reports that recasts are favored in that they can create a supportive classroom
environment and are efficient for time management. Zyzik and Polio (2008) also found that
recasts were the most commonly used type of feedback in three university Spanish literature
classes and discovered that recasts were the most preferred form of feedback by the
instructors, as analyzed by the interviews and stimulated recalls.
Long (2007) concludes that L2 research findings have shown that recasts in the L2 are as
effective as in L1. He states that recasts are not clearly necessary for acquisition but are
facilitative and especially efficient for older, more proficient L2 learners in that they do not
interrupt the flow of conversation, and thus keep learners focused on message contents.
There are not a lot of studies, but some researchers have paid particular attention to recasts
18
in the Japanese EFL situation. In a study which examined the effects of recasts provided on
learners’ past or conditional errors, Doughty and Varela (1998) found that an experimental
group that was given recasts showed greater improvements in accuracy and a higher total
number of attempts at pastime reference than the control group. Muranoi (2000) in a
quasi-experimental study focusing on college-level students in Japan, investigated how
recasts benefit the acquisition of English articles. He found that recasts helped the
development of learners’ interlanguage, both in written and oral tests. Loewen and Nabei
(2007) examined how different types of feedback (i.e., clarification requests, metalinguistic
clues and recasts) affect university students’ interlanguage development, and found that all
feedback was equally effective. Sakai (2004) examined whether recasts would contribute to
university students’ noticing and repairing language in later production, by comparing the
effect of models. The results implied that recasts would have a more enhancing effect than
models would, on noticing by Japanese learners of English.
2.2.3.2 Recast Features and Their Effects
Previous studies reported that recasts to learners’ grammatical errors were more frequently
provided than to any other error types, such as lexical, phonological errors and L1 use (e.g.,
Kim & Han, 2007; Lyster, 1998b; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Oliver, 1995; Zyzik, & Polio, 2008).
However, the effectiveness of recasts measured by learners’ successful uptake or repair (i.e.,
learners’ correct reformulation of an error occurring immediately after a recast) can differ by
the recast type. It has been reported that learners are less likely to repair after grammatical
recasts (i.e., recasts to grammatical errors) than lexical and phonological recasts (e.g., Kim &
Han, 2007; Trofimovich, Ammar, & Gatbonton, 2007; Sato, 2009a; Williams, 1999).
Trofimovich et al. (2007) found that learners were more likely to detect lexical errors than
grammatical errors when they received recasts, and in Egi (2007) it was observed that
19
students were more likely to interpret lexical recasts as corrective positive evidence than when
provided with grammatical recasts. The more facilitative effects of phonological recasts over
grammatical recasts are attributed to their salience and unequivocalness (Lyster, 1998b);
moreover, erroneous pronunciation can more seriously interfere with understanding than
grammatical recasts, making phonological recasts more salient (Mackey, Gass, &
McDonough, 2000; Saito & Lyster, 2012). Trofimovich et al. (2007) suggest that in order for
learners to notice their own grammatical errors through recasts and to reformulate them after
recasts, learners should already have knowledge of the form.
As for the effects of oral recasts according to grammatical difficulty, Varnosfadrani and
Basturkmen (2009) compared the effects of explicit correction and implicit correction (recast)
according to grammatical difficulty by coding structures as either early developmental or later
developmental, regarding the former as easy, and the latter as difficult. They found that recasts
are more effective than explicit feedback on difficult structures. They concluded that easy
structures are learned better with explicit correction and difficult structures learned with
implicit correction (recast). However, whether recasts are more effective on easy grammatical
structures than on more difficult ones, or vice versa, has yet to be examined.
In terms of the effects of recasts, judging by the difference between learners’ utterances
and recasts, Philp (2003) concludes that recasts closer to learners’ utterances may be more
beneficial to learners, and Sheen (2006) proved that the number of changes from learners’
utterances and recasts is an influential factor affecting learners’ perception of recasts: the
fewer the number of changes, the better learners can repair.
From the results of previous studies, it can be concluded that short recasts are more easily
noticed by learners than long recasts, leading them to repair previous erroneous utterances
(e.g., Egi, 2007; Philp, 2003; Sato, 2009a; Sheen, 2006). Egi (2007) found, through a
stimulated recall session, that learners failed to perceive long recasts as corrective but that this
20
was not the case with shorter recasts, thus concluding long recasts were less conducive. Philp
(2003) explains that long recasts are difficult to retain in working memory as they may
overload the time limitation of the phonological store. It can be summarized that long recasts
are less effective due to the overloaded nature.
2.2.3.3 Phenomena
2.2.3.3.1 Acknowledgement
Learners often respond to recasts via verbal or non-verbal acknowledgement, such as
“yes,” “mm”, or nodding. These learners’ acknowledgments were categorized as
“needs-repair” (i.e., the learner repeated the same error or made another error after the recast)
not “repair” (i.e., the learner successfully corrected the original error after the recast), in
previous studies (e.g., Lyster & Ranta, 1997). However, acknowledgement or acceptance of
the teacher’s correct version can mean an indication of what the learner really wanted to say,
and understanding that the teacher’s version is better than the learner’s erroneous utterance.
Even if learners fail to repair their erroneous utterances after recast, they may have made a
cognitive comparison between the utterances, or at least understood the feedback given. Pica
(1988) states that agreeing with or replying to a recast by simply saying “yes” is more
appropriate, and suggests a non-native speaker’s (NNSs) response to a native speaker’s (NSs)
feedback, other than acknowledgement, would be conversationally inappropriate. Sato & Lyster
(2007) also add that it is appropriate for learners to simply acknowledge recasts so that they
would not interrupt the flow of the conversation. As Kim and Han (2007) have suggested
when students acknowledged, they may not have known which part of their utterance was
wrong, but at least they must have learned that their utterance was incorrect. We could also
assume that learners have noticed corrective intention of recasts when they acknowledged
them.
21
Repair can be “evidence that learners are noticing the feedback” (Lightbown, 2000, p.
447), but the absence of a repair does not always mean learners’ noticing has not occurred:
even when they failed to repair by producing the same error, another error, acknowledging or
showing no response, learners could have noticed recasts.
2.2.3.3.2 Later Incorporation
Learners sometime produce a reformulated version of their errors, not just after recasts but
in later turns. In this case, they self-initiated to produce correct forms. This type of
self-initiated, modified repair, which came several turns after recasts in the current study,
should be regarded as optimal for acquisition. Shehadeh (2001) argues that self-initiation
means the NNS has realized that he/she needs to reformulate or modify output toward
comprehensibility for successful transmission of the message. Lyster and Ranta (1997) argue
that this attempt to produce more accurate and more comprehensible output will push learners
to reprocess and restructure their interlanguage toward modified output. Ohta (as cited in
Long, 2007) regards this type of later private speech from learners as evidence of the mental
activity of cognitive comparison between their ill-formed output and recast. Gass (1997)
argues that learners need to have further access to input so that they can show evidence that
their interlanguage has changed, and she points out the possible delayed effect of negative
feedback. Delayed self-initiated repair indicates that the learner has tested his/her hypothesis
on the L2 form—previously produced erroneously—without being corrected immediately
after a recast. It is assumed that hypothesis testing is happening (Swain, 1985; 1993) as one of
the crucial functions in output.
2.2.3.3.3 No Opportunity
Both in laboratory and classroom settings, it has been reported that teachers or native
22
speakers do not provide students with opportunities to respond after recast. They often
continue speaking after providing recasts, leaving no opportunity for students to show repair
(e.g., Loewen & Philp, 2006; Oliver, 1995; Sato, 2006; Zhao & Bitchener, 2007). However, as
Zhao and Bitchener (2007) claim, this “no repair” may not mean that students did not really
understand the feedback provided as recasts. Oliver (1995) argues, if students had been given
the opportunity to respond, some of them could have done so successfully.
2.2.4 Issues and Problems of Recasts
Previous studies have suggested some problems with recasts. One of the most noted
problems with recasts as corrective feedback is ambiguity from a learner’s perspective, which
may lead learners to perceive recasts as merely alternatives, not modification (Chaudron,
1988). Recasts can be perceived as confirmation, paraphrase or correction (Lyster, 1998a,
2007). Saville-Troike (2006) mentions that recasts, which are indirect correction, might
apparently seem to be paraphrasing learner’s utterances, but actually are correcting elements
of language use. Lyster and Ranta (1997) and Lyster (1998b) examined the occurrences of
repair, defined as learners’ repaired correct utterances of their non-target utterances after
receiving recasts, and found that learners did not often show repair. Both studies concluded
that as recasts are implicit they are unlikely to benefit learners who may experience difficulty
in differentiating positive and negative evidence.
Some previous studies showed that recasts were less effective than other types of feedback.
Carroll and Swain (1993) revealed that metalinguistic feedback was better than recasts.
Varnosfadrani and Basturkmen (2009) argued that explicit correction would induce learners’
awareness more than implicit correction such as recasts, referring to the crucial role of
attention in learning. Carroll (2000) has stated that the best corrective feedback is the most
explicit one which does not require learners to infer whether they have made errors, where the
23
errors are and how they should correct them. In the quasi-classroom study, Lyster (2004)
compared the effects of recasts and prompts (i.e., clarification requests, repetitions,
metalinguistic clues and elicitation), and statistically analyzed results of the written tasks
revealed that students receiving prompts performed better than students receiving recasts.
Ellis and Sheen (2006) have pointed out problems in recast studies: (1) definitional
fuzziness, that is to say, there are many types of definitions for recasts; (2) contextual factors,
which means that recast studies in lab settings cannot be equated with those in classroom
settings. Loewen and Philp (2006) summarizes that the likelihood of the effectiveness of
recasts depends on: classroom context including the age of participants and which language is
a focus of study; the context of the recasts within the discourse; variable elements of the
recasts(this will be discussed in the next section).
2.3 Written Feedback in the Form of Recasts
2.3.1 Importance of Writing
Writing is one of the crucial skills in students’ English learning — whether in English as a
second language (ESL) or English as a foreign language (EFL) — though even ESL learners
struggle to produce linguistically correct writing (e.g., Hartshorn, Evans, Merrill, Sudweeks,
Strong-Krause, & Anderson, 2010). Teachers may try to give the best feedback to help
students improve their writing. Written feedback can be focused on form or on content, and
both have been playing crucial roles in improving student writing quality (Coffin, Curry,
Goodman, Hewings, Lillis, & Swann, 2003). Previous studies found that not only teachers,
but students themselves prefer teacher written feedback (e.g., Nugrahenny, 2007; Saito, 1994).
However, since Truscott’s claim (1996) that written corrective feedback would never improve
learner writing ability—and may even be harmful—it has been debated to what extent
learners can benefit from written feedback. There seems to be some agreement that learners
24
can improve their writing in a second draft on the same topic after being given corrective
written feedback. (e.g., Ellis, Sheen, Murakami, & Takashima, 2008; Ferris, 1999, 2004;
Truscott, 1996, 1999). However, to what aspect (e.g., accuracy, fluency, complexity in
writing) or extent (e.g., how much errors or mistakes are corrected) they can demonstrate
writing improvement has not been well researched.
2.3.2 Pros and Cons of Feedback in Writing
The positive effects of written corrective feedback in L2 writing classes has been debated
since Truscott (1996) claimed that written corrective feedback would never improve learner
grammatical accuracy in writing. As to the reason of this ineffectiveness, he has pointed out
that written corrective feedback is not compatible with SLA theories that acquisition of the
forms and structures of writing is a gradual and complex process. Taking this strong position,
he argued that feedback is harmful and should be abolished because the act of written
corrective feedback would take time and energy away from more important aspects in writing
classes. He claimed teachers can avoid the harm by doing nothing. In a response to Ferris
(1999) which takes a strong position in the opposite direction, Truscott (1999) refuted the
assertion that giving written grammar corrections is generally beneficial and concluded that it
would be ineffective in improving students’ writing in L2. However, he did acknowledge that
it would be premature to conclude error correction can never be beneficial under any
conditions.
To Truscott’s (1999) controversial claims, Ferris (1999) argued that written error
corrections can help improve students’ writing, claiming the evidence Truscott cited for his
argument was not necessarily complete. In a later paper, Ferris (2004) introduced several
studies which found positive effects of written error corrections, and argued that SLA research
also predicts its positive effects, referring to the beneficial effect of Focus on Form. She
25
suggests that learners need to have their errors made salient and explicit so that they can
continue to develop linguistic competence avoiding fossilization. Although their positions are
totally different, Ferris (2004) agrees with Truscott (1999) that more systematic carefully
designed longitudinal studies are needed since existing evidence is not conclusive but
suggestive.
2.3.3 Students’ View of Feedback
In considering the effects of written feedback, students’ views of error correction from an
affective standpoint should be examined, though students are not always the best judges of
what they need most (Ferris, 2010). Ferris (1999, 2010) argues that L2 student writers
consistently value error feedback from their teachers to improve their writing. By using a
triangulation method with questionnaires and interviews, Nugrahenny (2007) examined
attitudes toward teacher written feedback by Indonesian students who were taking English
writing classes. The study revealed that of the 100 students examined 93% of them considered
teacher feedback as either important (49%) or very important (44%). In addition, it was found
that students prefer feedback focused on language or form rather than feedback on contents.
Saito (1994) investigated ESL learners’ preference for teachers’ written feedback. In the study,
thirty-nine students with different L1 backgrounds (e.g., Arabic, Japanese, Farsi, Korean,
Chinese, French, Swedish) in ESL intensive courses and an ESL engineering writing class
were asked to fill out a questionnaire. The results showed that ESL students preferred teacher
feedback and they found teacher feedback most useful when it focused precisely on
grammatical errors. Published previous studies, in general, showed learners’ as well as
teachers’ preference for written corrective feedback especially on form (e.g., Nugrahenny,
2007).
26
2.3.4 Trade-offs in Writing
Skehan (1996) points out that there are three aspects of production: accuracy, fluency and
complexity. Accuracy is defined by Skehan (1996) as the extent to which the target language
is produced in relation to the rule system and how well the learner can handle whatever level
of interlanguage complexity he/she has achieved. Ellis (1987, 2003) mentions that accuracy
requires syntactic processing with the availability of planning time. Fluency refers to learners’
ability to mobilize their system to communicate meaning in real time, prioritizing meaning
over form, and is achieved when learners can exercise strategies to avoid or solve problems
quickly (Ellis, 2003). Complexity is defined as the extent to which elaborate structured
interlanguage is utilized (Skehan, 1996). In writing, referring to previous studies (e, g., Ellis,
1987, 2003; Skehan, 1996), it can be argued that: accuracy concerns how precisely the learner
can write what he/ she wants to write; fluency is likely to be indicated by a high rate of
writing; complexity concerns to what extent the language produced is elaborate (Hunt, 1970;
Tong-Frederics, 1984; Sato, 2008).
As for the relation between accuracy, fluency and complexity, Ellis (2003) argues that
there could be trade-offs in L2 learners’ production, meaning that when L2 learners attend to
accuracy in their writing, it interferes with their ability to conceptualize, formulate, and
articulate messages, preventing them from showing fluency. Skehan and Foster (1999) argue
that in general fluency may be accompanied by either accuracy or complexity but not both,
referring to trade-offs in performance due to learners’ limited attentional resources. However,
there also is a contrasting view. For example, Robinson (2001) previously claimed that
learners can access multiple attentional resources.
As the effects of written corrective feedback on the relation of the three aspects have not
yet been fully examined, further study is needed.
27
2.3.5 Effects of Written Recasts
Written corrective feedback can be categorized as direct or indirect (e.g., Bitchener &
Knoch, 2010; Ellis et al., 2008). Direct correction is referred to as provision of the correct
target language form to learners’ errors, and indirect correction is defined as indications of
learners’ errors in some way, such as underlining, circling and coded symbols, which
encourages learners to self-correct their errors (Ellis et al., 2008). Written recasts, as they
provide models or correct forms, can be regarded as direct correction. However, if learners do
not notice their corrective intentions, written recasts cannot be either direct or indirect
corrective feedback. From this point we could argue that written recasts are either direct
correction or non-corrective feedback (e.g., conformation, paraphrase or comment).
Ayoun (2001) examined the effectiveness of written recasts by comparing it with
modeling (pre-emptive positive evidence) and grammatical instruction (explicit positive
evidence and negative feedback). In the study, in testing the effectiveness of the three
conditions, the acquisition of the aspectual distinction between the past tense in French was
used, and the recasts were given as implicit negative evidence. Post-test results revealed
written recasts were significantly more effective than grammatical instruction, but not
modeling. Although written recasts could have served as implicit positive evidence in some
cases, it was concluded that the result partially supported recasting as the most effective form
of feedback. In the follow up study, analyzing the mixed complicated results, Ayoun (2004)
concluded that the acquisition of subtle and complex structures requires both implicit negative
feedback such as recasts and explicit negative feedback as provided by traditional grammar.
2.3.6 Comparison of Written Recasts with Oral Recasts
Philp (2003) pointed out the limitations of working memory as one of the factors which
hinder the beneficial effect of recasts. Recasts in the form of oral corrective feedback demand
28
an immediate cognitive comparison also requiring learners to be dependent on short-term
memory. In the study which compared the effects of face to face communication and
computer-mediated communication on L2 development, Payne and Whitney (2002) found
greater improvements in oral proficiency in the post-test for learners who were in the
computer-communication group than those in the face to face communication group. They
interpreted that computer-mediated communication supported students who were less able to
maintain oral information in memory: Interlocutors’ feedback was less fleeting as learners
were able to trace it by reading. Williams (1999) also suggested that if cognitive comparison
is not overtly taxing learners’ attentional resources, learners with lower working memory
would benefit in feedback. As written feedback is delayed and imposes less cognitive demand
without requiring immediate on-line cognitive comparison—as in the case of oral
feedback—we could assume that written recasts would be better noticed by learners leading
them to L2 development than recasts provided as oral feedback.
2.4 Self-initiated Self-repair
2.4.1 Importance of Self-initiated Self-repair in the Japanese EFL Classroom
Errors naturally appear in spontaneous speeches and conversations. Especially in a second
or foreign language, it is only natural that mistakes happen as a part of the learning process.
After an inappropriate expression is detected, it can be corrected. This act of correcting can be
initiated either by the speaker (non-native speaker) or the recipient. The former is termed as
self-initiated, while the latter as other-initiated (Schegloff, Jefferson, & Sacks, 1977).
Occasionally, non-native speakers (NNSs) correct or modify their output to make it more
comprehensible after they detect an insufficient previous utterance. This phenomenon is
referred to in second language acquisition (SLA) research as self-initiated self-completed
repair (Kasper, 1985). In Japanese junior or senior high schools, classes average around 40
29
students, making it practically impossible for teachers to have frequent one-on-one
interactions providing students with corrective feedback. Thus, in many cases, students are
left to converse with other students in the L2, being asked to perform communicative
activities without direct oversight of the teacher. In this situation, students are ideally
expected to provide their partners with feedback or to notice their own insufficient utterances
in order to carry out self-initiated self-repair.
2.4.2 Definitions and Studies on Self-initiated Self-repair
In the contexts of NS/NNS and NNS/NNS interactions, L2 learners attempt to modify
their erroneous or insufficient utterances in the direction of more comprehensible output: the
learner him/herself realizes the trouble source (a trigger) and reacts to it by trying to repair it
(Kasper, 1985). The following is an excerpt of a self-initiated, self- repair extracted from Sato
(2012a).
I go …um went to his house yesterday.
(trigger ) (self-initiated part) (self-repair)
The student detected that the form of the output (go) was erroneous, stopped the speech
flow, and finally corrected the error. Shehadeh (2001) examined and compared the effects of
their initiation and self-initiation with adult L2 learners in an interactive task (picture
description, opinion exchange, and decision making) and found that learners produced more
modified output after self-initiation. He concluded that self-initiations have a crucial role in
promoting modified output. Kormos (1999) suggested that self-repair may serve in the same
way as uptake (a move taken by the NNS in response to the feedback given to his/her
previous utterance). She explained that as it is a part of a mechanism that promotes pushed
30
output, self-repair expands the learners’ linguistic repertoire. Kasper (1985) investigated
negotiated information between a NS and an NNS, as well as NNS/NNS exchanges, and
concluded that self-initiated self-completed repair is more important than other-initiated
other-completed repair for successful language learning. According to Schegloff, Jefferson,
and Sacks (1977), self-initiated repair may occur within the same utterance turn, immediately
after the end of the turn, or in a subsequent turn. Schegloff (1979) concluded that
“self-initiation, same turn repair is the most common and most successful” (p. 268). However,
empirical research shows that learners do not correct every mistake they have made and that
they correct not only linguistic (phonological, lexical, syntactic) errors but also pragmatically
inappropriate utterances and inadequate information. In a study of NS/NS interaction,
Schegloff et al. (1977) observed that repairs focused more on content and pragmatic errors
than on linguistic errors. Kasper (1985) found that in an NS/advanced NNS interaction, the
majority of repairs focused on content and pragmatic repairs rather than linguistic repairs. As
for the effects of learners’ English proficiency on the occurrence and the success of
self-initiated self-repair, Lyster and Ranta (1997) noted that only when learners have acquired
an adequate level of English proficiency is self-initiated self-repair feasible.
The timing of self-correction according to the types of triggers has been researched (e.g.,
Kormos, 2000; Van Hest, 1996 ): the occurrences of self-initiated repair according to the
different task conditions learner are engaged in are researched, for example, in Shehadeh
(2001). In terms of uptake or success rate, studies on recasts are conducted (e.g., Sato, 2009;
Kim & Han, 2007; Trofimovich, Ammar, & Gatbonton, 2007; Philp, 2003). However, the
effects of types of triggers on the occurrences or uptake of self-repair is rarely researched
especially in the Japanese EFL environment, indicating the need for further study in the EFL
situation in Japan.
31
Chapter 3
Examining the Effectiveness of Recast for Japanese High School Students
with low English Proficiency
In this chapter, the study, which examined the effectiveness of recasts on low-level
learners, is reported. The study (Sato, 2006) also observed and analyzed how the teacher
provided recasts to students.
3.1 Study 1: Examining the Effectiveness of Recasts for Japanese
High School Students
3.1.1 Purpose of the Study
Lyster (1998) examined the role of recasts in his study with French immersion classrooms
at the primary level, and found that the teachers did not consistently use recasts for corrective
purposes and they sometimes used recasts in reaction to student’s accurate use of L2. He has
concluded that students are unlikely to be given recasts just for corrective purposes. The
purposes of the study (Sato, 2006) are to examine how effectively recasts are provided by
teachers and to how effectively recasts are noticed by low-level learners resulting in repair.
Discussing possible factors which may constrain the acquisition effect of recasts, so that we
could suggest some possible ways to overcome problems, is also a purpose of the study.
3.1.2 Method
3.1.2.1 Participants
The participants in this experimental study were 38 second-year students (20 males and 18
females) at a public high school in Hokkaido whose academic level was relatively low.
32
Students were divided into two groups in such a way that there was no overall difference in
English ability between the groups ( Group A, n＝18, Group B, n＝20）Their English teacher,
who was also a homeroom teacher, conducted this grouping and made pairs after careful
consideration so that the students could easily perform the communicative activities with their
partners: Group A consisted of 9 pairs and Group B, 10 pairs.
3.1.2.2 Procedure
Three activities, namely, play-acting, a skeleton dialogue and an interview, which are
typical and traditional activities widely found in many textbooks authorized by the Japanese
government, were developed for this study. In play-acting activities students are usually
required to practice and learn the role by heart to perform the model dialogue. Students in this
study were given the direction that if they had not been able to memorize all the words or had
forgotten what they had memorized during the dialogue, they should use their own words or
expressions which could serve to continue the conversation (see Appendix A).
In the skeleton dialogue activity, students were required to fill in the blanks of the model
dialogue. They were given time for preparation. Livingstone (1983) explains, “skeleton
dialogues gives a very limited choice and can be used where the situation and function are
concrete” (p. 53), but for the current study a traditional skeleton dialogue activity was
developed so that students would have real communication or interaction. That is, students
were required to continue conversation freely about the topic (see Appendix B). In the
interview activity, students were asked to be an interviewer and to interview somebody using
the target form and take notes. They were also required to obtain some information from
interviewees and then to continue the conversation freely (see Appendix C). In the activities,
the main focus was on free conversation. The communicative activities had been pilot-tested
by three high school teachers with 16 years’ experience of teaching, and by using their
33
feedback some revisions were made so that students would have no difficulty with the
activities.
Group A performed the activities on the first day of the experimental class and Group B
the second day. During the activities the teacher participated in the activities of each pair at
least once to provide students with feedback (recasts) and more interaction. The teacher took
part in the part of free conversation of the skeleton dialogue and the interview activities. All
of her utterances were tape-recorded. Each of the tape-recoded activity was transcribed for
analysis, totaling 70 min of 24 discourses. Transcriptions were re-checked to ensure their
accuracy and in a limited number of cases where there were still unsolved transcriptions
difficulties the original participants were invited to interpret. After the experimental class, a
retrospective interview was conducted with the teacher, and students wrote a review for the
activities.
3.1.3 Results and Discussion
Previous studies implied that interaction between the teacher and learners in the current
study would have a facilitating effect for acquisition if sufficient recasts were provided.
However, in the current study, the teacher’s recasts were not as effective as we had expected.
Examples of conversations in which recasts were ineffective will be discussed here. (Note:
Italics are recasts)
On some occasions recasts were not appropriately given for corrective purpose:
1. S: I don’t have many friends.
T: Oh, you don’t have a lot of friends.
2. T: What had you been doing before you entered this high school?
34
S: Everyday is sleeping.
T: Oh, you were, every day?
S: Yes. Every day is sleeping.
T. I cannot believe that.
In these examples, recasts were not appropriately given. In example 1, the purpose of the
recast was not to let the student notice and correct the previous utterance but to indicate the
teacher’s emotion (surprise). In example 2, she showed her surprise in using a recast without
any corrective purpose.1 She should have, at least, given the recast just after the student’s
second use of “Every day is sleeping.” During the activities totally 49 recasts were given to
students, and 12 of them (24%) found out to be inappropriate, or without corrective purpose.
The results are compatible with Lyster (1998) which has concluded that recasts are often
given to students for non-corrective purposes.
Table 3.1：The number of recasts, with or without corrective purpose
Recast without corrective purpose 12 (24%)
Recast with corrective purpose 37 (76%)
Total 49
In many cases, recasts with corrective purpose were not noticed by students.
3. Student: I been reading a book.
1 These interpretations were confirmed by the interview with the teacher.
35
Teacher: Oh, you have been reading a book?
S: Yes, reading a book. And I …..
4. T: What had you been like before you entered this high school?
S: I had been sleep.
T: Sleeping?
S: Yes. I had been sleep. I like sleep.
In these examples, the teacher made attempts, by giving recasts, to make students notice
the erroneous utterances in order to correct them, but in fact the students did not notice them
and continued their conversations. In the activities of the study, many recasts were given to
students, most of which were not actually noticed by them, and the teacher and student kept
the conversation going. In the study conducted by Lyster and Ranta (1997), it was reported
that only 18% of teacher recasts were immediately noticed and followed by a student repair.
They argued that recasts were not as effective as other types of feedback, such as clarification
requests, repetition, metalinguistic feedback and elicitation in eliciting student-generated
repair. In the current study, among 37 recasts with corrective purpose, only 9 were followed
by students’ repair (16 %). One potential reason that students did not notice recasts is that
students in the study were not yet ready to notice them to repair their errors or mistakes.
Previous research suggests that only more proficient learners may benefit from recasts (e.g.,
VanPatten, 1996; Philp, 2003). As a related issue of readiness, Farrar (1990) found in his
study that recasts were especially effective at a certain stage in the child’s development of
morphemes but were not effective prior to the stage that they were cognitively ready, and has
claimed that linguistic readiness is a determining factor in benefiting from recasts. Philp
(2003) argues that in terms of processing mechanism and prior knowledge, readiness may
36
modulate noticing, and also says that learners tend not to notice input that is beyond their
level of acquisition. For the students in the current study, noticing recasts to repair previous
utterances may have been beyond their English level. The fact that 27 students answered, in a
reviewing paper, that they had difficulty understanding what the teacher’s recasts meant
confirms this.
Table 3.2：Outcome of recast
Repair 9 (16%)
Needs-repair 28 (76%)
Total 37
There seems to be another factor which constrained effectiveness of recasts. The following
are examples in which a recast was noticed but was not successful in making the student
correct her previous utterance.
4. S: I been lazy (mispronounced) when junior high school.
T: Oh, you had been lazy (corrected) when you were in Junior high.
S: Lazy (corrected) in junior school.
In Example 4, the student noticed her phonological error and corrected it but was not able to
correct her morphosyntactic error.
5. T: What had you been doing before I entered the room?
S: I had speaking my friend.
T: Oh, you had been talking with your friend.
37
S: Yes, talking friend.
Examples 4 and 5 are situations when recasts were noticed. Nonetheless, we feel that the
effects of recasts were incomplete because students noticed only one error and corrected it
without noticing the other errors or mistakes. In these examples, the teacher’s recasts were
long and there were several differences between the recasts and the students’ original
utterances. Philp (2003) points out that the length of recasts and the degree of difference are
factors that may critically affect noticing. The length of recasts may exceed learners’ limits of
temporary phonological store, and as a result recasts may be less accurately recalled (Philp
2003). As for recasts that are too different from the learners’ original utterance as we observed
in examples 3 and 4, they are less likely to be imitated as they are too far removed from the
original versions (Long, 1996). In the current study, among 37 recasts with corrective purpose,
14 recasts were with more than two changes from students’ original utterances, and among 9
successful well-formed students’ output, only 2 of them were after recasts with more than two
changes.
Table 3.3：Recasts with corrective purpose, number of changes
Recast with more than two changes from
students’ original utterances 14 (38%)
Recast with one change from students’
original utterances 23 (62%)
Total 37
As we have discussed so far, recasts given in teacher-student interaction were not so
effective as we had expected for students’ L2 acquisition in this study. The lack of significant
38
advantages of recasts may be due to the lack of student readiness, the length of recasts and
degree of differences between students’ original utterances and recasts, and inadequacy of the
recasts themselves for corrective purposes.
3.2 Summary of Chapter 3
Qualitative analysis of students’ utterances with a teacher has pedagogical implications. In
the activities in which a teacher participated, she provided 49 recasts to students. However, as
12 of them were without corrective purpose, we can safely say those recasts were
inappropriate and ineffective for acquisition. In real conversational situations we may give
recasts without the purpose of encouraging learners to correct their interlanguage, but in
English teaching situations this is not beneficial for acquisition. We suggest that all recasts
should have corrective purpose to give a clue of learners’ errors and mistakes, otherwise
learners would not notice recasts even when they really have corrective purpose.
Among 37 recasts aiming at letting learners notice their mistakes 14 of them had more
than two changes from students’ original utterances. When we think of the fact that only 2 of
them led learners’ repair, long recasts with more than two changes from students’ original
utterances did not work effectively. Hence we argue that teachers should be well trained to
provide recasts effectively. The results of the study revealed recasts had, in many cases, gone
unnoticed or had been neglected. We assume recasts are not so effective for low-level learners
as the students in this study. However, if we take into consideration a number of previous
studies documenting significant advantages of recasts for learners, with a little thought we
could make recasts more effective. We suggest that teachers should be careful in their choice
of words for recasts, taking account of the students’ proficiency. Considering students’
limitations of working memory, we should give recasts that are more concise, familiar and
plain so that students do not have difficulty in noticing and retaining them to repair.
39
Additionally, in giving recasts, we should use techniques such as changing the tone of voice,
using facial expressions, adding a pause, or whatever measures may prompt students to notice
errors or mistakes. As it seems difficult for non-proficient learners to notice recasts, teachers’
well-considered techniques are inevitable.
40
Chapter 4
Considering the Effectiveness of Recasts on Japanese High School Learners’
Learning with Intermediate English proficiency
In the last chapter, Sato (2006) reported the effects of recasts on low-level Japanese
learners of English without high motivation toward learning English. In the study it was
revealed that recasts were not very effective and were provided inefficiently by a Japanese
teacher. As previous research indicates that recasts are more helpful for high and intermediate
learners than for low-level learners (e.g., Philp, 2003), it is necessary to investigate the effects
of recasts not only on low-level Japanese learners but also on intermediate ones. This chapter
reports three studies which examined the effects of recasts on intermediate high school
learners, most of whom are college bound.
4.1 Study 2: Considering the Effectiveness of Recasts on Japanese High School Learners’
Learning
4.1.1 Purpose of the Study
This study (Sato, 2009a) examines the effects of recasts according to the error type, the
degree of difference between students’ initial utterances and the recasts, and the number of
morphemes of recasts. This was motivated by previous studies which found some relationship
of those factors with the effects of recasts (Lyster, 1998b; Philp, 2003; Sato, 2006). This study
is designed to examine: How effective are recasts for intermediate high school students
according to error types? (RQ1); the degree of differences? (RQ2); length? (RQ3)
41
4.1.2 Method
4.1.2.1 Context of the Study and Participants
In Japan, English has long been taught as a knowledge-based subject and, for many
students, passing of knowledge-based exams is the primary objective. Japanese students seem
to have dual orientations for learning English: a practical, realistic goal related to
examinations and grades, and a vague idealistic goal related to using English for international
or intercultural communication (Yashima, 2000). It seems that most students have the former
type of motivation (related to tests) more than the latter (related to communication) in the
Japanese EFL situation (Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004).
The participants of the study were: a native English teacher from Australia who had been
teaching English as an assistant language teacher (ALT) for five and a half years in Japan; 32
second-grade college bound Japanese high school students (15 males and 17 females, aged 16
or 17). In the curriculum, the students were taking a general English II course and a writing
course. Four English II classes and two writing classes were conducted in a week. A Japanese
teacher taught all of the classes except one writing class which was taught by her and the ALT
together, once in two weeks. In the writing class, students were engaged in communicative
activities and tasks as well as writing activities. All of the students had passed the entrance
exams for the academically higher level high school with relatively high scores in English. In
the questionnaire conducted just before the study, 28 out of 32 students (88%) answered that
they liked the communicative English classes taught by the ALT. Thus, we regarded them as
intermediated students with relatively high motivation toward learning English.
4.1.2.2 Procedure
The English class for the study was not a formal teacher-centered class but was instead a
series of interview tests of students, conducted by the ALT, David (this name is fictitious). In
42
the interview, David and a student had a free conversation, which mainly took the form of
David asking questions and the student answering about his/her daily life covering topics such
as hobbies, study, family, future dreams and so on. There were no target structures for the
study as this was a natural communication-based task. David had told students to do their best
to communicate clearly and said he would evaluate students’ English performances. David
knew that their interactions would be recorded but did not know the purposes of the study. He
had not been given any instruction on which types of feedback should be given to students.
All recordings were transcribed and re-checked by the researcher to ensure their accuracy.
Additionally, in a limited number of cases where there were still unsolved transcription
difficulties, the original participants were invited to interpret. The database includes 32
interviews totaling 362 minutes.
4.1.2.3 Data Analysis
4.1.2.3.1 Error Types
Student errors to which recasts were given were categorized as grammatical errors, lexical
errors, phonological errors and unsolicited uses of Japanese, following Lyster and Ranta
(1997): (1) Grammatical errors are errors in the use or lack of determiners, particles, verb
forms, word order; (2) Lexical errors include inappropriate, imprecise or inaccurate choices of
lexical items; (3) Phonological errors address inappropriate, imprecise or inaccurate
pronunciation; (4) Unsolicited use of Japanese is an instance where a student speaks Japanese
instead of English. In cases where a student produced an utterance with more than one type of
error, we coded it as the error type on which the recast focused. The following are examples
according to error types.
43
Example 1 Grammatical recast.
Students 1: I go to Okinawa two years ago.
David: Oh, you went to Okinawa before. ←recast
Student 1: I was very happy. (Failed)
Student 1 failed to repair the utterance after David’s grammatical recast, and was therefore
coded as “Failed”. In Example 2, student 2 succeeded in producing a repaired utterance and
was coded as “Successful”.
Example 2 Lexical recast.
S2: I will drink, drink medicine.
D: Yes. You will take medicine. ←recast
S2: Oh, Yes. Yes. Take medicine. (Successful)
In the following examples, students successfully responded to recasts.
Example 3 Phonological recast
S3: I had a headache (mispronounced as /hedeit∫/)
D: Oh, you had a headache. ←recast
44
S3: Yes. Headache (pronounced correctly) headache. (Successful)
Example 4 Recast to unsolicited use of L1
S4: I want to be a… Kango- si?
D: Oh, you want to be a nurse. ←recast
S4: Yes, I want to be a nurse, nurse. (Successful)
Although students’ unsolicited use of their L1 may not be erroneous, it is crucial for them
to communicate without using Japanese. A response from the teacher can be interpreted as an
explicit correction, but it is still corrective feedback changing only the use of the L1 without
changing the speaker’s central meaning. Thus, this type of feedback was regarded as a recast
in this study.
4.1.2.3.2 Degree of Difference
To examine the effects of the degree of difference between the learner’s initial utterance
and the recast, the number of changes was counted and coded following Philp (2003), but for
the study, recasts were divided into two categories according to whether the recast had only a
single change or more than one change. This decision was made referring to Sato (2006)
which revealed that recasts with more than one change were less likely to be noticed by the
learners. Conversion of the subject was not counted as a change and inversion counted as one
change. Recasts in Examples 2 to 5 were counted as a single change, and the recast in
Example 5 was coded as two changes (were, playing).
45
Example 5
S5: I… I’m … play baseball last year.
D: OK, you were playing baseball last year. ←recast
S5: … (silence) … Yes. I play… (Failed）
4.1.2.3.3 Lengths
Recasts were also categorized into long or short ones according to the number of
morphemes, based on Philp (2003): recasts with more than five morphemes were coded as
long. Example 6 was coded as short and Example 7, long.
Example 6
S6: I eat it.
D: Oh, you ate it. ←recast
S6: Yes, I ate it. (Successful)
Example 7
S7: I didn’t know… what… should I do… study.
D: OK, you didn’t know what you should study then. ←recast
S7: … (silence)… I … lazy... (failed)
46
4.1.2.4 Issues in Analyzing the Effectiveness of Recasts
In analyzing the results, some crucial issues emerged that could affect the interpretation of
the effects of recasting. Previous studies counted learners’ correct reformulation of an error
occurring immediately after recasts as a repair in measuring the effectiveness of recasts (e.g.,
Lyster, 1998b; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Sato 2006). However, this measurement should be
reconsidered. Long (2006) mentions that recasts do not always have immediate corrective
effects and that learners’ immediate reproduction after recasts is unreliable as an indication of
learning since it might be just a “language-like” behavior (p.99). He introduces Mackey and
Philp (1998), which showed that the existence of immediate response to feedback was not an
indication of learning, and also that the absence of an immediate response did not mean
learning had not occurred. This argument is convincing. Practicing teachers know that
learners are more likely to respond immediately after teachers’ models—if they are well
trained to do so—and that some learners can learn without responding to teachers.
4.1.2.4.1 Acknowledgement
We found that in many cases (14 instances) students just responded to recasts by saying
“yes,” “mm”, or nodding. The interview test conducted by David definitely had a pedagogical
purpose requiring students to speak correctly, but the test itself was meaning-focused
interaction. We could assume that some students may have hesitated to produce repair because
this would interrupt the flow of the conversation or simply be unnatural. As long as it is not
elicitation feedback such as a clarification request, some students may have assumed it was
unnecessary to modify their initial utterances, as it was more appropriate for them to simply
acknowledge recasts to continue the conversation (Sato & Lyster, 2007). When students
acknowledged, they may not have known which part of their utterance was wrong, but at least
they must have learned that their utterance was incorrect (Kim & Han, 2007). As is mentioned
47
in Chapter 2, repair can be “evidence that learners are noticing the feedback” (Lightbown,
2000, p. 447), but the absence of a repair does not mean learners’ noticing has not occurred.
4.1.2.4.2 Later Incorporation
In seven cases, students produced a reformulated version of their errors, not just after
recasts but in later turns which they self-initiated to produce correct forms. This type of
self-initiated, modified repair, which came several turns after recasts in the current study,
should be regarded as optimal for acquisition because of the reasons mentioned in Chapter 2.
Thus, we may have to code students’ later incorporation as successful uptake.
4.1.2.4.3 No Opportunity
In interactions between David and the students, 142 recasts were recorded, among which
43 (30%) did not provide students with opportunities to respond. In these instances David
continued to speak after providing recasts, leaving no opportunity for students to show repair.
The following is an example.
Example 8
S8: I play violin in junior high school.
D: You played the violin. OK. Was it difficult?
↑ (No opportunity)
This phenomena has been reported previously, both in laboratory and classroom settings
(e.g., Loewen & Philp, 2006; Oliver, 1995; Sato, 2006; Zhao & Bitchener, 2007). However, as
Zhao and Bitchener (2007) claim, this “no repair” may not mean that students did not really
48
understand the feedback provided as recasts in the current study. We could assume, as Oliver
(1995) has argued, if students had been given the opportunity to respond, some of them could
have done so successfully.
4.1.2.4.4 Preferred Recast
It has been reported that teachers tend to use non-corrective repetition in teacher-student
interaction (e.g., Lyster, 1998a: Sato, 2006) to show, for example, acceptance, approval or
confirmation (Lyster, 1998a). These non-corrective repetitions were not counted as recasts
since they did not include rephrasing or changing of students’ utterances. However, a very
similar phenomenon which could reduce the salience of “real corrective recasts” was reported
in the study. On many occasions (40 instances were reported), David responded to students’
correct forms by providing recasts to show his preferences or to “edit discourse” (Mohan &
Beckett, 2001, p.138 as cited in Long, 2006). In the current study, we decided to use the term
“preferred recast” which showed David’s preference or inclination. The following is an
example of a preferred recast
Example 9
S9: I like singing.
D: Oh, you like to sing.
In the current study, students did not show repair after preferred recasts. They only
acknowledged the recast 13 times by saying “yes” or nodding; while 8 times they did not
notice or ignored the recasts. In four cases, students responded by ill-formed output, as
49
Example 10 shows.
Example 10
S10: I want to learn knowledge about history.
D: You want to be knowledgeable about history. (preferred recast)
S10: … No, no. I’m not.
D: OK, so…
In the example, the student could not understand David’s preferred recast and seemed to
have been confused. In the rest of the cases of preferred recasts, opportunities to respond were
not given.
4.1.2.5 Measuring the Effectiveness of Recasts
Taking into account the issues mentioned, a criterion was set up in measuring the
effectiveness of recasts. When students acknowledged recasts, they served as comprehensible
input because students’ acknowledgement indicates their understanding of recasts given. In
this situation, recasts were effective, at the least, at the level of comprehension.
Acknowledgement moves should be regarded as potential evidence of the effectiveness of a
recast for L2 learning (Zhao & Bitchener, 2007). In the case of students’ repair in later turns,
this is more overt indication of incorporation. When students are not given the opportunity to
respond to recasts they consequently cannot do so. When they are given recasts to their
correct utterances, students do not have to reformulate their original utterances. The
50
measurement to examine the effectiveness of recasts taken was: “no opportunity” and
“preferred recasts” were not included in the denominator; “later incorporation” and
“acknowledgement” were included in the numerator, meaning that they were coded as
successful.
Students produced 142 erroneous utterances which were given recasts by David. The two
raters coded 20% (28) of total recasts to classify them according to error types, the number of
changes, and the number of morphemes. Agreement on the coding was 25 out of 28 (89%).
We considered that inter-rater agreement was high enough for the first rater to continue
coding. In the situation when students’ errors included more than one error type and recasts
included more than one change with more than one error type, we excluded them from
analysis. There were only four instances like this and David did not give learners
opportunities to respond to his recast.
4.1.3 Results
We recorded 20 repairs, 14 times of “acknowledgement”, 7 times of “later incorporation”,
43 times of “no opportunity” and 40 “preferred recasts”. The calculation conducted was: (20
＋14＋7) ÷ (142－43－40) ＝ 69%. A chi-square statistic was computed, which proved
there was significant difference between the numbers of successful moves (41) and
unsuccessful moves (18) (χ2 = 8.96, df = 1, p ＜ .05). The term “success rate” may not be
the best one to use here, as acknowledgement may not always show the effectiveness of
recasts, and the degree to which recasts have enhanced learning can differ by the three moves
(i.e., repair, later incorporation, and acknowledgement). However, the term is meaningful
enough to distinguish the three moves from failures (i.e., recasts ignored or unnoticed), so it
was decided to use it for the study.
51
4.1.3.1 Error Types: How Effective are Recasts for Intermediate High School Students
According to Error Types? (RQ1)
Table 4.1 presents the number of recasts, successful moves and success rates according to
error types. Recasts were given mostly to students’ grammatical errors followed by lexical
errors, phonological errors, and their unsolicited use of Japanese. The rate of success was
highest with students’ L1 use followed by lexical errors, phonological errors, and the rate of
success with grammatical errors was found to be the lowest.
Table 4.1: Number of recasts, successful moves and success rate by error type
Type Recast Repair Acknowledgement
Later incorporation
Success rate
Grammar 29 5 9 4 62 %
Lexical 13 6 3 1 77 %
Phonological
10 5 2 0 70 %
L1 7 4 0 2 86 %
4.1.3.2 Degree of Difference: How Effective are Recasts for Intermediate High School
Students According to the Degree of Differences? (RQ2)
Table 4.2 shows the number of recasts with one difference, more than one difference
between the learner’s initial utterance, and successful moves. The results revealed that recasts
with only a single change led students to successful moves better than recasts with more than
one change. The acknowledgement move was more frequent and later incorporation was less
with recasts having more than one change than with recasts having only a single change.
52
Table 4.2: Number of recasts, successful moves and success rate by degree of change
Differences Recast Repair
Acknowledgement Later incorporation
Success rate
One change 33 15 5 6 79%
More than
one change 26 5 9 1 58%
4.1.3.3 Length: How Effective are Recasts for Intermediate High School Students
According to Length (RQ3)
Table 4.3 shows the number of short recasts with 5 morphemes or less and long recasts
with more than 5 morphemes, and successful moves. The distribution of long recasts was very
low (10%). Although the result showed a higher success rate of long recasts, neither repair nor
later incorporation was recorded. A successful move was confirmed only by
acknowledgement.
Table 4.3: Number of recasts, successful moves and success rates by length of recast
Length Recast Repair
Acknowledgement Later incorporation
Success rate
Short 53 20 8 7 66%
Long 6 0 6 0 100%
4.1.4 Discussion
In general, the results imply that recasts can facilitate learning, considering the high
success rate (69%). Statistically, a successful move was more frequent than a failed move.
However, some factors appeared to have impacted on the effectiveness of recasts. First, error
types were revealed to have affected both the distribution and the effectiveness of recasts, as
summarized in the following:
53
Distribution of recasts:
Grammar (49%)＞Lexical (22%)＞Phonological (17%)＞L1 (12%)
Success rate:
L1 (86%)＞Lexical (77%)＞Phonological (70%)＞Grammar (62%)
David provided recasts more frequently to students’ grammatical errors than to any other
error types, which is similar to previous studies (e.g., Kim & Han, 2007; Lyster, 1998b; Lyster
& Ranta, 1997; Oliver, 1995; Zyzik, & Polio, 2008). In this study, neither the total number of
students’ errors by type nor other types of feedback produced by David were addressed, so the
interpretation of David’s preference for recasting with grammatical errors is a matter of
speculation. However, referring to the results reported earlier (e.g., Lyster, 1998b; Lyster &
Ranta, 1997), we could assume that David might have felt it appropriate to recast
grammatical errors because modifying students’ grammatical knowledge through negotiation
of form requires modifying complex system-driven rules. We could also assume that in the
Japanese grammatical accuracy-oriented English classroom, he might have felt it important to
address grammatical correctness. Despite this, the success rate in grammar was the lowest,
which is generally consistent with previous studies (e.g., Kim & Han, 2007; Trofimovich,
Ammar, & Gatbonton, 2007; Williams, 1999). Trofimovich et al. (2007) found that higher
proficiency learners benefited from recasts more than lower proficiency learners. They
suggest that in order to notice their own errors through recasts and to reformulate them after
recasts, students should already have knowledge of the form. In this study, some students
must have lacked the explicit knowledge to benefit from the enhancing effect of recasts.
Learners’ explicit knowledge can be a precondition to respond to recasts directed at
54
grammatical errors successfully, whether their response is in the form of immediate repair,
acknowledgement, or later incorporation. That is to say, students should have knowledge
about the target form, especially in showing immediate and later repair. Just to acknowledge
recasts may not require this deeper knowledge, a comprehension level may be sufficient. The
fact that among total success moves (18), acknowledgement was the most frequent move (9,
50%) implies that recasts directed at grammatical errors had a less enhancing effect than
recasts directed at other types of errors.
Recasts addressed at students’ L1 led to the highest rate of immediate repair or later
self-repair. This is explained by the salience of the recast and the cognitive process students
experienced when they decided to speak Japanese followed by the English equivalent (recast).
As feedback was given immediately after students found interlanguage deficiencies, they
could easily understand the corrective purpose of the recast, leading them to produce what
they had wanted to say. Recasts were provided exactly when needed, as positive evidence.
Without a doubt we can assume this “right thing done at the right time” approach enhanced
learning.
The results revealed that recasts of lexical and phonological errors were noticed more by
the students, showing they had greater effectiveness than those directed at grammatical errors,
which is consistent with previous studies (e.g., Kim & Han, 2007; Oliver, 1995). The
tendency of learners to concentrate on lexical meaning rather than on form, as research on
interaction has shown (e.g., Williams, 1999; Zhao & Bitchener, 2007), was confirmed in the
study. Trofimovich et al. (2007) found that learners were more likely to detect lexical errors
than grammatical errors when they received recasts. In this study, as was observed in Egi
(2007), students were more likely to interpret lexical recasts as corrective positive evidence
than when provided with grammatical recasts.
The slightly higher success rate of phonological recasts than grammatical recasts may be
55
attributable to their salience and unequivocalness (Lyster, 1998b). A recast given immediately
after an incorrect pronunciation clearly conveyed its corrective purpose, showing a model
without requiring cognitive readiness. We could assume that in some cases students only had
to imitate or repeat David’s pronunciation, even when they did not have any knowledge to
correct phonological errors. In addition, David, who had been teaching in Japan for years and
did not have difficulty in understanding students’ Japanese-accented pronunciation, provided
phonological recasts only when the students made serious errors. This behavior of his must
have made the recasts more salient.
As for the effects of recasts, judging by the difference between learners’ utterances and
recasts, the results supported Philp (2003) who mentioned that recasts closer to learners’
utterances may be more beneficial to learners. The fact that later incorporation, which requires
a complicated cognitive process such as hypothesis testing, was reported only once after
multiple-change recasts, but six times after single-change recasts also shows the more
conducive effect of single-change recasts compared to multiple-change recasts.
In interpreting the effects by length, we decided just to look at repair and later
incorporation excluding acknowledgement because the total number of long recasts (more
than five morphemes) was very small, and all of the successful moves after long recasts were
acknowledgements automatically producing a 100 % success rate. The reason that students
failed to repair either immediately or later is explained by Philp (2003) as being because long
recasts are difficult to retain in working memory as they may overload the time limitation of
the phonological store. In a stimulate recall session in Egi (2007), which revealed that long
recasts were less conducive, it was found that learners failed to perceive long recasts as
corrective, but this was not the case with shorter recasts. We can assume that in the current
study students also failed to repair, and could only acknowledge, due to the overloaded
ambiguous nature of long recasts.
56
4.1.5 Conclusion
The study, which examined the effectiveness of recasts for Japanese high school learners,
implied that facilitating optimal effects of recasts for learning, showed a high success rate
computed by the criteria which considered acknowledgement, later incorporation, no
opportunity, and preferred recasts.
Analyses of the study offer some pedagogical implications. When recasts are given, they
should be short with only a single change and should have 5 morphemes or less so that
learners can notice them easily and use them to reformulate their original erroneous utterances.
No opportunity and preferred recasts were found to reduce the optimal effects of recasts,
indicating that only when learners had made errors should corrective recasts be given,
followed by an opportunity for learners to reformulate. Recasts to students’ L1 use are most
effective, followed by lexical, phonological, and grammatical recasts. In deciding whether or
not to give recasts and when choosing the types of feedback, it can be beneficial to keep this
order in mind. Doughty (2001) has mentioned that while explicit correction is intrusive,
breaking into learners’ utterances, implicit correction such as recasts enables learners to
integrate forms as the learner continues to speak. For learners who often have difficulty
continuing communication in English, such as the Japanese high school students in the study,
the unobtrusive quality of recasts is helpful even at the expense of other disadvantages. It was
recorded that two students, who were not necessarily the most proficient in English, produced
repair more than twice after corrective recasts. This implies that if students know the
corrective purpose of recasts and are given the opportunity to respond, they are more likely to
do so. It is crucial for teachers to provide recasts at the right time in the correct manner so that
students can notice recasts and thus reformulate their errors.
There are some limitations that need to be recognized. In this study, observable overt
acknowledgement was coded as a successful move, which may raise some questions. We
57
believe that acknowledgement, in general, is a learner’s successful cognitive reaction to
recasts, but there is the possibility that students misinterpreted corrective recasts as
acceptance, response to contents, or confirmation. Acknowledgement implies that students
have paid attention to recasts but they may not have noticed the negative evidence of recasts.
In this study it was impossible to measure correctly the degree of learner noticing or the
existence of correct interpretation of recasts through acknowledgement since it is not as well
evidenced as repair or later incorporation. We have to admit that in some cases
acknowledgement may not involve learning–relevant cognitive process. Related to this issue,
students’ erroneous responses to corrective recasts were coded as failed in this study. We
could assume that the students may have noticed that their original utterances were incorrect
and tried to produce more target like ones. It is necessary to explore the validity of the
measurement employed in the study. We interpreted that students had to use existing explicit
knowledge to respond successfully to grammatical recasts. However, as recasts can function
as positive evidence as well as negative feedback, recasts may have the potential of being
beneficial in the development of new language. We assume this can be the case when recasts
intensively target some specific structure. Further study is needed to examine this. Another
limitation of the study is its sample size. Ideally we should have had more students to be
interviewed, and more interviewers to provide them with recasts. The results of the study,
with only 32 students and one interlocutor engaged in the interview activity, may not be
generalizable.
This small-scale study, as the first study to attempt to analyze the effectiveness of recasts
with a measurement after scrupulous analysis of recasts and students’ responses, should be
seen as preliminary. To confirm the findings of the study, further research on learners’
cognitive reaction to recasts, with more samples, is needed.
58
4.2 Study 3: Measuring Effectiveness of Recasts Determined by Grammatical Difficulty
4.2.1 Purpose of the Study
Previous research has shown the potential advantages of the recast, although some
problems have also been suggested. Previous studies reported that recasts to learners’
grammatical errors were more frequently provided than to any other error types, but that the
success rate in grammatical recasts was the lowest. After categorizing grammatical structures
as either early developmental (easy) or late developmental (difficult), this study (Sato, 2010a)
attempts to examine the effects of recasts according to grammatical difficulty by using an
established measurement based on careful analysis of recasts and students’ responses.
4.2.2 Method
4.2.2.1 Participants and Procedure
Participants and procedures are the same as ones in Study 2: Data obtained in Study 2
were used for the purposes of this study.
4.2.2.2 Data Analysis
Varnosfadrani and Basturkmen (2009) coded structures as either early developmental or
later developmental, regarding the former as easy, and the latter as difficult. Their
categorization (p. 5), based on previous empirical studies, is as follows.
Early developmental (easy):
1. Definite article (the) 2. Irregular past tense 3. Plural S
Late developmental (difficult):
1. Indefinite article (a, an) 2. Regular past tense 3. Relative clauses
4. Active & passive voice 5. Third person singular S
59
We decided to use this categorization, and termed it as “Categorization A”.
Krashen (1982) proposed ranks for structures from early-mastery to later mastery:
Progressive (-ing), Plural S, B copula → Be auxiliary, Articles (a/the) → Irregular past tense
→ Regular past tense, Third person singular S, Possessive–s. However, as it is generally
observed that Japanese learners acquire possessive–s earlier than articles (e.g., Shirahata,
1988), we decided to change the positions of the two structures: Progressive (-ing), Plural S,
B coupla → Be auxiliary, Possessive–s → Irregular past tense → Regular past tense, Third
person singular S, Articles (a/the). We divided the structures into two groups as either early
developmental (easy) or late developmental (difficult) and termed it “Categorization B”:
Early developmental (easy):
Progressive (-ing), Plural S, B coupla, Be auxiliary, Possessive–s
Late developmental(difficult):
Irregular past tense, Regular past tense, Third person singular S, Articles (a/the)
Categorizations A and B were used for the analysis. The following are examples of
grammatical recasts according to early (easy) or late (difficult) development.
Example 1 Irregular past tense (early in A, late in B)
Student 1: I go to Okinawa two years ago.
David: Oh, you went to Okinawa before. ←recast
Student 1: I was very happy. (Failed）
60
Example 2 Third person singular S (late in A and B)
Student 2: My sister like English very much.
David: Oh, she likes English. ←recast
Student 2: Yes. She … she … likes English. (Successful)
Although a recast was provided to student 1, she did not repair her original utterance and
continued talking. She did not have the opportunity to use “went” later, and was coded as
failed. On the other hand, student 2 noticed her mistake and repaired it after the recast, which
was coded as successful.
4.2.3 Results
In total, 59 recasts were recorded with 29 of those recasts provided to grammatical errors:
The number of recasts to lexical errors was 13; Phonological errors, 10; L1 use, 7. For the
present study, we focused only on the data on grammatical recasts. We recorded 5 repairs, 9
times of “acknowledgement”, and 4 times of “later incorporation” after grammatical recasts.
We regarded “acknowledgement” and “later incorporation as favorable moves as it was done
in Study 2, and calculated the effectiveness of the grammatical recasts as (5＋9＋4) ÷ 29=
62%. The term “success rate” may not be the best one to use here, as acknowledgement may
not always show the effectiveness of recasts, and the degree to which recasts have enhanced
learning can differ by the three moves (i.e., repair, later incorporation, acknowledgement).
However, success rate is meaningful enough to distinguish the three moves from failures (i.e.,
recasts ignored or unnoticed), so we felt it was an appropriate term to use for the study.
Among 29 grammatical errors, 22 were in Categorization A. Table 4.4 shows the number
of recasts, successful moves and success rates for early developmental or easy structures,
Table 4.5 shows the same for late development or difficult structures. Among 29 grammatical
61
errors, 23 were in Categorization B. Table 4.6 shows the number of recasts, successful moves
and success rates for early development or easy structures, Table 4.7, for late or difficult
structures.
Table 4.4: Categorization A (early development or easy structures)
The number of recasts, successful moves and success rates
Type Recast Repair Acknowledgement Later incorporation
Definite
article (the) 2
1 1
Irregular
past tense 4 1 1 1
Plural S 5 1 1
Total 11 2 3 2
Success rate=64%
62
Table 4.5: Categorization A (late development or difficult structures)
The number of recasts, successful moves and success rates
Type Recast Repair Acknowledgement Later incorporation
Indefinite
article(a,an) 1
Regular
past tense 5 1 1 1
Reflective clauses 2
2
Active & passive voice 2
1
Third person singular S 1 1
Total 11 2 4 1
Success rate=64%
Table 4.6: Categorization B (early development or easy structures)
The number of recasts, successful moves and success rates
Type Recast Repair Acknowledgement Later incorporation
Progressive(-ing)
(-ing) 2
1
Plural S 5 1 1
B copula 0
B auxiliary 1
1
Possessive -s 2 1 1
Total 10 2 3 1
Success rate = 60%
63
Table 4.7: Categorization B (late development or difficult structures)
The number of recasts, successful moves and success rates
Type Recast Repair Acknowledgement Later incorporation
Irregular past tense 4 1 1 1
Regular past tense 5 1 1 1
Third person singular S 1 1
Article (a, the) 3
1 1
Total 13 3 3 3
Success rate = 69%
4.2.4 Discussion and Conclusion
In measuring the effects of recasts, two measurements were used for the study
(categorizations A, B). In Categorization A, success rates of recasts to easy structures and
more difficult ones were the same (64%). In Categorization B, which has taken some account
of Japanese learners’ developmental progression, success rate was higher in more difficult
structures (69%) than in easy ones (60%). Among the three successful moves, namely, repair,
later incorporation, and acknowledgement, the degree to which recasts have enhanced
learning can be different. In addition, as the sample size is very small, “success” is still a
matter of speculation so far. However, recasts can be effective for Japanese high school
students’ learning, irrespective of the degree of difficulty of grammatical features. To respond
successfully to grammatical recasts, students use existing explicit knowledge, as is the case
with elicitation—feedback that does not provide a learner with correct form but instead elicits
a correction from a learner. However, as recasts can function as positive evidence as well as
negative feedback, by showing a model of what is grammatical and acceptable, recasts may
have been beneficial in the development of new language. That is to say, even when students
64
did not have explicit knowledge on some structures they may have responded successfully
after being provided with a model. As a pedagogical implication it can be argued that teachers
can provide recasts irrespective of the degree of difficulty of the grammatical structures. If
students already have explicit knowledge on the structures, they would notice their
ungrammatical utterances immediately after the recasts and repair them. If not, they may learn
the correct form of the original utterance, and repair it.
A 62% success rate may not be high enough to be convincing as to the positive effects of
recasts for Japanese high school learners, but even among failed moves we could observe the
optimal effect of recasts. The following is an example of an erroneous reformulation.
Example
Student 3: I didn’t know what did she like.
David : Oh, you didn’t know what she liked.
Student 3: Yes. I didn’t know what … um
Muzukasii ("difficult" in Japanese).
David: OK. So your mother liked…
The student tried to produce well-formed output, but finally gave up. However, she seems
to have noticed that her original utterance was incorrect and tried to produce a correct one. In
this situation, even though the student did not successfully produce well-formed output,
presumably because of grammatical difficulty, she was in the process of acquisition. As
Mackey (2007) argues, recasts might “sensitize” (p.22) learners to produce well-formed
output in future output. These erroneous reproductions after recasts occurred 6 times in the
study. This small scale study implied the effectiveness of recasts on learning grammar.
65
4.3 Study 4: Effects of Recasts in a Japanese High School Classroom
4.3.1 Purpose of the Study
Some previous studies showed that recasts were less effective than other types of feedback,
such as explicit corrective feedback (e.g., Carroll & Swain, 1993: Ellis et al., 2006: Lyster,
2004; Varnosfadrani & Basturkmen, 2009.) However, it should be noted that explicit
corrective feedback can be obstructive. For example, Doughty (2001) claimed that explicit
corrective feedback would break the flow of the conversation, and Long (2007) pointed out
that overt error correction can be disruptive causing “unpleasant side effects” (p. 77). It is
worthwhile to examine, with Japanese high school learners, whether explicit corrective
feedback, such as explicit correction, elicitation, metalinguistic feedback, is more obstructive
than recasts are by causing communication breakdowns.
The present study (Sato, 2011a) examines the effects of recasts on Japanese high school
learners, most of whom are college bound, and this time, recasts are provided by a native
speaker of English. The research questions of the study are as follows:
RQ1. To what extent do students repair their errors after a recast?
RQ2. What type of recasts, which potentially hinder the optimal effect of recasts, does the
native speaker provide?
RQ3. Is explicit corrective feedback more obstructive than recasts are by causing
communication breakdowns?
4.3.2 Method
4.3.2.1 Participants and Procedure
Participants and procedures are the same as ones in Study 2: Data obtained in Studies 2
and 3 were used for the purposes of this study.
66
4.3.2.2 Data Collection and Analysis
In interactions between David and the students, 142 recasts were recorded, among which
43 (30%) did not provide students with uptake opportunities. In these instances David
continued to speak after providing recasts, leaving no opportunity for students to show repair.
It has been reported that teachers tend to use repetitions in teacher-student interaction (e.g.,
Lyster, 1998a: Sato, 2006) to show, for example, acceptance, approval or confirmation (Lyster,
1998a). These non-corrective repetitions were not counted as recasts in this study since they
did not include rephrasing or changing of students’ utterances. However, a very similar
phenomenon which could reduce the salience of “real corrective recasts” was reported in the
present study. On many occasions (40 instances were reported), David responded to students’
correct forms by providing recasts to show his preferences or to “edit discourse” (Mohan and
Beckett, 2001, p.138 ［as cited by Long, 2007］). Tentatively in the study, I decided to use the
term “preferred recast” which showed David’s preference or inclination. When students are
not given the opportunity to respond to recasts they consequently cannot do so. When they are
given recasts to their correct utterances students do not have to reformulate their original
utterances, as we consider recasts to be given to let learners notice their errors in order to
correct them. The measurement to examine the effectiveness of recasts taken was: “no
opportunity” and “preferred recast” were not included in the denominator. Confirmation
checks with reformulations of erroneous utterances that maintain the central meaning
intended by the student were coded as recasts in the present study. Simple repetitions without
reformulations were not coded as recasts. The following is an excerpt of a confirmation check
coded as a recast.2
Excerpt 1
2 All names are pseudonymous
67
Excerpt 1
Kosuke: I don’t take care of my little sister last year.
David: Oh, you didn’t take care of your sister then. (recast)
Kosuke: Ah, I didn’t take care of her. (Successful)
To examine whether explicit corrective feedback is more obstructive than recasts are,
explicit correction, elicitation, and metalinguistic feedback were analyzed. Table 4.8
illustrates the definitions with examples of explicit corrective feedback.
Table 4.8: Definitions and examples of corrective feedback
Type Definition Examples
Explicit correction Explicit provision of the “You should say just discuss.
correct form
(Lyster & Lanta,1997) Not discussed about.”
“Discussed your future.”
Elicitation
Techniques the teachers use to
elicit the correct form from
learners
“Try that again.”
“What did you say?”
(Lyster & Ranta,1997) “Last night you …”
Metalinguistic Provision of comments, “It's plural.”
feedback
information, or questions “Did you use the past tense?”
related to learners’
metalinguistic knowledge
(Lyster, 2004)
68
The interviews as stimulated recall measurements were conducted only when it was
needed to confirm interpretations of some phenomena with 12 students. That is to say, how
students felt when: an opportunity to respond was not given; a preferred recast was given;
explicit corrective feedback was given. Interviews with students were conducted in Japanese
two weeks after the study. After listening to tape-recorded segments containing the
phenomena (no opportunity, or preferred recast, or explicit corrective feedback) students were
asked how they felt then.
4.3.3 Results and Discussion
4.3.3.1 To What Extent do Students Repair Their Errors After Recasts? (RQ1)
The analysis yielded a total of 142 recasts to the students’ utterances. Students
successfully responded immediately after them 20 times in the form of repair. As “no
opportunity” and “preferred recast” were not included in the denominator, the calculation
conducted was: (20)÷(142－43－40)＝34%. 20 is the total number of repair; 142, the total
number of recasts; 43, no opportunity; and 40 is the number of preferred recasts. As table 4.9
shows, 34% of recasts were successfully followed by repair.
Table 4.9: Number and percentage of recasts and repair
Recast Repair Success rate
59 20 34%
4.3.3.2 What Type of Recasts, Which Potentially Hinder the Optimal Effect of Recasts,
Does the Native Speaker Provide? (RQ2)
As is mentioned earlier, with qualitative data collection, two distinctive phenomena in
69
providing recasts, which potentially hindered learners’ repair, emerged.
4.3.3.2.1 No Opportunity
In 43 instances David continued to speak after providing recasts, leaving no opportunity
for students to show repair. The following is an example.
Excerpt 2
Yuki: I play violin in junior high school.
David: You played the violin. OK. Was it difficult?
↑(No opportunity)
Excerpt 3
Yosuke: My mother like it very much.
David: Oh, she likes it. How about you?
↑(No opportunity)
This phenomena has been reported previously, both in laboratory settings and classroom
settings (e.g., Oliver, 1995; Sato, 2006; Zhao and Bitchener, 2007), and was coded as “no
repair” (e.g., Lyster and Ranta, 1997; Lyster, 1998b). However, this “no repair” does not mean
that students did not really understand the feedback provided as recasts (Zhao and Bitchener,
2007). Oliver (1995) has argued, if students had been given the opportunity to respond they
could have done so successfully. In the stimulated recall interview it was confirmed that Yuki
and Yosuke noticed their errors when the recasts were provided. It is assumed that the
exclusion of recasts which did not provide the opportunity for response for analysis, as is
70
done in McDonough (2007), is theoretically and methodologically sound.
4.3.3.2.2 Preferred Recasts
Preferred recasts were examined and analyzed qualitatively, and they were classified into
four groups according to their functions: formalizing, simplifying, elaborating, and changing a
word(s) or a grammatical structure(s). This grouping was conducted by two raters. When they
had disagreements, they had discussions to arrive at a final decision, but three cases for which
agreements were not obtained were excluded from the analysis. However, we have to admit
that setting the exact boundary between the four categories was a difficult task. The decisions
were made interpretatively; some cases could overlap.
The following are examples of each type of non-corrective recast and the numbers in
parentheses are the frequency of the phenomenon. In these examples, the students’ utterances
were grammatical or natural in the discourse, and David provided recasts to make them more
favorable to him.
Excerpt 4 Formalizing (19)
David: What junior high school did you go to?
Maruko: Osatsube.
David: Oh, you went to Osatsube junior high (preferred recast)
Excerpt 5 Formalizing (19)
David: What kind of books have you been reading lately?
Naoto: Japanese history.
David: Oh, you have been reading Japanese history. (preferred recast)
71
Excerpt 6 Simplifying (8)
David: Tell me about your brother.
Mika: My brother teaches English.
David: Teacher. (preferred recast)
Excerpt 7 Simplifying (8)
Reiko: I didn’t study hard when I was very tired.
David: You weren’t a hard worker. (preferred recast)
Reiko: Yes. Yes.
Excerpt 8 Elaborating (7)
David: How can you help people?
Kazuo: I want to be a lawyer.
David: Oh, you want to be a lawyer who can work to help others.
(preferred recast)
Excerpt 9 Elaborating (7)
David: How do you reduce your stress? What do you do when you are under stress?
Rie: … stress? Oh, I do… yoga…
David: You practice yoga to get rid of your stress. (preferred recast)
Excerpt 10 Changing a word(s) or a grammatical structure(s) (6)
Yukie: I like singing.
David: Oh, you like to sing. (preferred recast)
72
Excerpt 11 Changing a word(s) or a grammatical structure(s) (6)
Akiyoshi: My glass, glasses broken when I was playing basketball.
David: Your glasses got broken while you were playing basketball.
(preferred recast)
Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) used the term “possible-but-not-preferred” (p.59) for this
type of learners’ utterance. Whether or not correct “possible-but-not-preferred” utterances,
such as “My hobby is sleeping” (recorded in the present study), can totally hinges on the
interlocutor’s preference. A similar phenomenon is reported in Mohan and Beckett (2001) in
which a teacher consistently provided recasts not to correct errors but to show models of more
academically appropriate language. In Yoshida (2010), which examined Japanese language
teachers’ and learners’ perceptions of corrective feedback, a teacher gave a feedback to a
learner’s correct sentence with the intention to suggest a more appropriate form. However, in
the stimulated recall interview, the learner mentioned that she thought the teacher corrected
her sentence and she could not understand what the teacher was saying. In the present study,
students did not show well-formed output after preferred recasts. They only acknowledged the
recast 13 times by saying “yes” or nodding; did not notice or ignored the recasts 8 times. In
four cases students responded by ill-formed output, as Excerpts 12 and 13 show.
Excerpt 12 Ill-formed output after preferred recast
Katsuhisa: I want to learn knowledge about history.
David: You want to be knowledgeable about history. (preferred recast)
Katsuhisa: … No, no. I’m not.
David: OK, so…
73
Excerpt 13 Ill-formed output after preferred recast
Akiko: My mother always scolds me.
David: Oh, you are often scolded by your mother. (preferred recast)
Akiko: No. My mother don’t…
David : OK, so…
In both of the examples, the students could not understand David’s preferred recasts and
became confused. In a stimulated recall interview, Katsuhisa (in excerpt 12) mentioned:
As I couldn’t understand what he said, I was confused. I just guessed that he asked me if I
was very good at the subject. So I said, “no”.3 (Katsuhisa, interview)
Akiko (in excerpt 13) also confessed:
David spoke very fast, so I couldn’t understand what he said. I thought he might have
asked if my mother had done something bad to me. Maybe I felt pressured to say
something and I said something. (Akiko, interview)
In the rest of the cases of preferred recasts, opportunities to respond were not given.
4.3.3.3 Is Explicit Corrective Feedback More Obstructive Than Recasts are by Causing
Communication Breakdowns? (RQ3)
3 Student’s quotations are written with a deliberate effort to retain the conversational features of the original Japanese
(translated by the researcher).
74
In this study, as explicit feedback, explicit correction, elicitation, and metalinguistic
feedback were analyzed. The following are episodes extracted from the present study.
Excerpt 14
Kahoko: We discussed about our future.
David: Not discussed about. Discussed your future. (explicit correction)
Kahoko: Ah, discussed. About iranai (is not needed in Japanese)… discuss, discuss (said to
herself) … (silence)…
David: OK. What will you do tomorrow?
Excerpt 15
Takeshi: When I was a child, I always play soccer.
David: When you were a child, you always….what did you say? (elicitation)
Takeshi: … (silence)… Ah, played, played. I played soccer.
David: OK. Good. …
Excerpt 16
Sonoko: Yesterday I buy… bought three book.
David: Plural, Fukusu-desu. (That must be plural, in Japanese). (metalinguistic feedback)
Sonoko: Ah, Itsumo wasureru (I always forget in Japanese). Three books. Kore daiji? (Is this
important? in Japanese)
David: Of, course. You should be careful.
Sonoko: …Hi (Yes, in Japanese). Yes. Yes.
David: OK… What junior high school did you go to?
75
In Excerpt 14, after the break of the flow, David had to change the topic. In Excerpt 15,
David explicitly elicited a reformulation from the student by pausing and asking a question.
When David tried to elicit the correct form, the student’s attention as well as David’s shifted
from the meaning to the form. After David’s compliment (“OK. Good.”), there was a silence
and David changed the topic. In the stimulated recall interview, Takeshi (in Excerpt 15)
mentioned:
I had prepared a soccer story for the test. I practiced and memorized a lot of words,
expressions and sentences. I really wanted to tell how much I had enjoyed playing soccer
when I was a child. But after David pointed out my grammar error, I don’t know why but I
did not feel like talking about the story for some reason. (Takeshi, interview)
Kahoko (in Excerpt 14) mentioned:
I wanted to enjoy talking with David because I like English. But he didn’t seem to be
enjoying it as he was checking my errors and teaching the correct forms. I felt a little bit
demotivated. (Kahoko, interview)
In Excerpt 16, after metalinguistic feedback followed by Sonoko’s repair the topic changed.
Sonoko had thought she would explain about the books she bought:
I was thinking how I would explain about the three books I had bought. I thought I would
be able to do it well. But the topic was changed. I felt disappointed. It was impossible for
me to ask him to go back the previous topic. (Sonoko, interview)
76
In total, 16 explicit corrective feedback were reported, followed by 8(50%) communication
breakdowns, which means a long silence (more than three seconds) followed by a sudden
topic change. Table 4.10 summarizes this.
Table 4.10: Number of explicit feedback and communication breakdowns
the number of times communication breakdown
Explicit correction 4 2(50%)
Elicitation 7 4(57%)
Metalinguistic feedback 5 2(40%)
Total 16 8(50%)
Recast 59 4( 7%)
Unlike other types of feedback, recasts are not obstructive in nature, as has been noted in
other research as “…their implicit and genuinely unobtrusive qualities will allow teachers and
learners to continue their joint focus on meaning…, while still dealing with linguistic
problems” (Long, 2006, p. 103). In this study communication breakdowns after real corrective
recasts were observed only four times (7%). Doughty (2001) has mentioned that while
explicit correction is intrusive, breaking into learners’ utterances, implicit correction enables
learners to integrate forms as the learner continues to speak. The findings of the present study
were compatible with this argument. Although recasts can sometimes hinder learners from
noticing correct forms, recasts are useful in providing correct forms in that they do not disturb
the flow of communication without intimidating students by not explicitly pointing out their
errors (Yoshida, 2010). For learners who often have difficulty continuing communication in
English, such as the Japanese high school students in the study, the unobtrusive quality of
recasts is helpful to engage them in more communication.
77
4.3.4 Conclusion
The results of the study imply that no opportunity and non-corrective preferred recasts
would reduce the optimal effects of recasts, indicating that only when learners had made
errors should corrective recasts be given, followed by an opportunity for learners to
reformulate. Preferred recasts, which were not conspicuous in the study with a Japanese
teacher (Sato, 2006), were often provided in this study presumably because the native speaker
had a lot of options or a store of English. We could expect that highly proficient Japanese
teachers of English would show this phenomenon, too. As preferred recasts are an additional,
they should be given mainly to higher level learners. Students’ already correct utterances can
be more refined by the recasts. A 34% success rate may not be high enough to be convincing
as to the effectiveness of recasts, but their use can still be encouraged, as recasts are not as
obstructive as other type of explicit corrective feedback, such as explicit correction, elicitation
and metalinguistic feedback.
It should be noted that through the interpretations of recast-related phenomena in the study,
we cannot draw robust conclusions. I conducted interviews as stimulated recall measurements
only with 12 students. As the stimulated recall is indispensable in considering the effect of
feedback, it should have systematically been done with all of the students and the interlocutor.
Further, the definition and categorization of preferred recasts can be problematic. If David had
the intention of prompting students’ next utterances, some of the preferred recasts introduced
in the study can be considered not as recasts but prompts. In further study, a stimulated recall
interview with an interlocutor for introspective data is needed to confirm the interpretation.
Grouping of preferred recasts was conducted by two raters, but the decision was made rather
interpretatively. A specific criterion is definitely needed to define preferred recasts and
categorize them. Furthermore, in this study, the data was collected only through the interview
tests conducted by one ALT. Further study should be conducted in the different conversational
78
situations with other native speakers, as well as highly proficient Japanese teachers of English
having conversations with students.
Since findings are within the context of the learners and the NS investigated in this study,
lacking stimulated recall interviews with all of the participants, conclusions should be taken
as tentative. This small scale study has shown some interesting findings that have relevance to
the EFL classroom. However, the present study should be considered just as a first step to
examining effects of recasts on Japanese high school learners. Further theoretical sampling
and more credible analysis are needed.
4.4 Summary of Chapter 4
Studies 2, 3 and 4 confirmed the relative effectiveness of recasts provided to Japanese high
school learners with intermediate English proficiency. More specifically, Study 2 revealed that short
with only a single change recasts are more likely to be noticed by learners leading them to
reformulate their original erroneous utterances, and that despite the fact that grammatical
recasts are tended to be provided most frequently they are less likely to be noticed by learners.
Study 3 implied that recasts can be effective for Japanese high school students’ learning,
irrespective of the degree of difficulty of grammatical features. Finally, Study 4 implied that
recasts can be encouraging and motivating for learners as they are not as obstructive as other
type of explicit corrective feedback. These finding suggest that recasts can be utilized in
Japanese senior high school English class, at least, with intermediate level students.
79
Chapter 5
Measuring the Effects of Recasts on Noticing Through Stimulated
Recall
In a number of previous studies, learners’ repair of their initial errors after recasts has been
counted as a reliable measure of L2 learning (e.g., Egi, 2010; Ellis & Sheen, 2006; Loewen,
2005; Lyster, 1998b; Lyster & Ranta, 1997; Sato, 2009a). However, doubts have been cast
about regarding learners’ immediate reproduction after recasts as an indication of learning
since it might be just a “language-like” behavior (Long, 2007, p. 99), and some other
researchers are also cautious about the interpretation of repair because of the possibility that
learners can just repeat the recasts in a parrot-like fashion without understanding their
corrective intention (e.g., Bao et al., 2011; Egi, 2010; Gass, 2003). It has also been reported
previously that learners could not respond to proffered recasts only because interlocutors
often did not provide opportunities for learners to repair their utterances (e.g., Loewen &
Philp, 2006; Oliver, 1995; Sato, 2009; Zhao & Bitchener, 2007).
Researchers argue that learners have to notice the corrective intention of recasts by
attending to the linguistic problems in their initial utterances so that recasts can be effective
for learning (e.g., Gass, 1997, Schmidt, 1990). This means that when learners notice the gap
between their erroneous utterance and the recast, learning can occur (Schmidt, 1990). Another
approach in evaluating the effects of recasts focuses on learners’ cognitive processes when
they are provided recasts. Stimulated recall is a retrospective method to elicit the thought
processes involved in carrying out an activity (Gass & Mackey, 2000). This method is
intended to probe learners’ perception of recasts and the extent to which recasts can engage
80
learners in a cognitive comparison, or noticing (Ellis, 1994). By using a stimulus, such as an
audio or a video recording, learners are asked to report what they were thinking at the time of
the activity. This approach of eliciting learners’ commentaries as evidence of noticing in oral
interaction has been widely used (e.g., Egi, 2010; Mackey, et al, 2000; Yoshida, 2010).
In this chapter, two studies (Sato, 2013a; 2013b), which examined learners’ noticing
through stimulated recall are reported.
5.1 Study 5: Examining Intermediate-level Japanese University Students’ Perceptions of
Recasts
5.1.1 Purpose of the Study
Egi (2010) explored into the relationship between uptake and noticing by using the
stimulated recall approach. In the laboratory study, twenty-four Japanese as a Foreign
Language (JFL) learners were engaged in task-based interactions in which they were provided
recasts of their problematic utterances. After that, each of the learners watched a video
recording of recast episodes in order to make a comment on them. The analysis of the
stimulated recall reports found that learners who perceived that the recasts had corrective
intention were more likely to produce uptake after recasts. In addition, it was found to be
statistically significant that learners who correctly repaired their initial problematic utterances
reported not only noticing the corrective intention of recasts but the gap between their initial
production and the model provided in the form of the recasts more than those who did not.
Egi cautiously states that uptake, especially repair, can indicate learners’ noticing of recasts,
but that even when learners do not notice, they can repair, or, conversely, even when learners
notice, they may not be able to repair. This is compatible with Bao, et. al (2011) which
summarizes that the rate of noticing is higher when it is measured by stimulated recall than
when measured by learner uptake.
81
Yoshida (2010) investigated perceptions of corrective feedback using audio recordings
and stimulated recalls of seven university JFL learners and two university JFL teachers. In the
study, it was observed that recasts were more frequently provided than any other types of
feedback such as metalinguistic feedback, elicitation, explicit correction and repetition.
Learners successfully repaired after 52% of recasts and did not respond to 13% of recasts.
Analysis of the stimulated recall interviews found that 25 out of the 48 students, when they
repaired after recasts, learners noticed recasts as realizing corrective intention, or found the
gap between their initial production and the recast. However, noticing did not always happen
when learners acknowledged (10 out of 48 instances) or inquired (5 out of 48 instances)
recasts. Yoshida concludes that learners’ response to corrective feedback does not always
indicate noticing or understanding of the corrective feedback. Although noticing did not
always accompany acknowledgement or inquiry in Yoshida (2010), these two studies indicate
that counting learner repair in measuring the effectiveness of recasts may be valid.
As these previous studies (e.g., Egi, 2010; Yoshida, 2010) were conducted with JFL
learners, it is necessary to also examine whether Japanese English as a Foreign Language
(EFL) learners actually notice recasts when they repair. In addition, it is crucial to examine
learners’ noticing when they fail to repair correctly, did respond, or acknowledge recasts, as
well as their perceptions of recasts as it would have implication on the measurement of the
effectiveness of recasts.
With this background, the following research questions have been formulated for this
study:
RQ1. Did noticing occur when learners
1) repaired?
2) repeated the same error or made another error (needs-repair)?
82
3) failed to respond to the recasts (no uptake)?
4) acknowledged the recasts (acknowledgement)?
RQ2. What are learners’ perceptions of recasts?
The first research question is motivated by the consideration of whether repair can be
counted as a valid measurement of recast effectiveness, and whether acknowledgement can be
regarded as a favorable response to recasts in that it accompanies noticing. The second
research question stems from the desire to find out how learners perceive recasts other than by
noticing.
5.1.2 Method
5.1.2.1 Participants
Three university students in the same national university of education in Japan, Kanako,
Yuki, and Kouki (all names are pseudonyms) participated in the study. Kanako was a graduate
student majoring in music who also held an English teaching license. In the same year, before
the study was conducted (September, 2011), she had studied English teaching methodologies
in Canada for 6 months. Yuki was a senior majoring in English education who had studied
abroad at an American university for 10 months, from September 2010 to July 2011. Kouki,
who was majoring in English education, had studied at a South Korean university for 10
months, from September 2010 to July 2011. His decision to study abroad in Korea was
motivated by his strong desire to learn a different Asian culture, which he thought would be
useful in teaching English at Japanese junior high schools. At that university, he took a lot of
English medium classes with other international students, and used both English and Korean
in his daily life there.
83
All participants had already passed the pre-first grade of the STEP Test4 and were
preparing to take the first grade of the STEP Test at the time of the study. As they also had no
problem communicating in English, they can be regarded as, at least, intermediate learners of
English. The breakdown of the participants in the study is shown in Table 5.1:
Table 5.1: Breakdown of the students
Name Major Age Gender English Proficiency Study Abroad Experience
Kanako Music 23 F pre-first grade STEP Test Canada (6 months)
Yuki English 22 F pre-first grade STEP Test America (10 months)
Kouki English 22 M pre-first grade STEP Test South Korea(10 months)
The researcher is a male Japanese teacher of English with more than twenty years of
professional experience.
5.1.2.2 Procedure
The study involved two sessions conducted privately in the researcher’s office. Both
sessions were recorded by both a digital video camera and an audio recorder. The first was a
one-to-one interaction between the student and the researcher. After L2 small talk aimed at
easing tension while creating a comfortable atmosphere, students’ were, at first, engaged in a
4 The STEP Test is an English proficiency test conducted by a Japanese non-profit organization, the Society for Testing
English Proficiency, Inc. (STEP), and backed by the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and
Technology (MEXT).The test consists of listening and writing sections followed by a speaking test, and has been generally
regarded as one of the most reliable and valid English proficiency tests in Japan. MEXT requires Japanese teachers of
English to posses at least pre-first grade scores on the STEP test.
84
picture description activity adopted from the pre-first grade of the STEP Test, followed by a
free conversation in the form of a semi-structured interview. In the picture description activity,
students were given a horizontal sequence of four pictures, and were required to describe the
story depicted. As the same four pictures were used for all three students, the expected
descriptions were also the same. In the interview, the researcher asked questions about the
students’ study abroad experience, and daily life, covering topics such as hobbies, study,
family, and future dreams. On the same day, several hours after the first session, stimulated
recall interviews were conducted in the same manner, but in Japanese. All recordings were
transcribed and re-checked by the author to ensure their accuracy. Additionally, in a limited
number of cases where there were unresolved transcription difficulties, individual participants
were invited to interpret the results.
Table 5.2 shows the sequence of the procedure.
Table 5.2: Sequence of procedures
First session Second session
Oral tasks (Picture description, Interview) Stimulated recall
Kanako 44 minutes long (from 9:30, September, 30, 2011) 62 minutes (from 16:00)
Yuki 36 minutes long (from 10:00, October, 4, 2011) 44 minutes long (from 16:00)
Kouki 40 minutes long (from 9:00, October, 26, 2011) 51 minutes long (from 16:00)
5.1.2.3 Recasts
In the majority of the previous studies that examined the effectiveness recasts, recasts
were provided intensively for learners’ erroneous productions of pre-selected target forms
while ignoring all other types of errors. However, as recasts are “by far the most frequently
used feedback across a spectrum of classroom settings” (Lyster, 2007, p. 93), it is clear that
85
recasts are provided to a wide range of problematic learner utterances in natural classroom
settings. It can be argued that pre-selecting target forms for intensive recasts in research
settings can be of little significance for practicing teachers seeking implications for actual
teaching (Ellis & Sheen, 2006), and focusing on one or a few error categories may lead
students to neglect others (Xu, 2009). In the current study, therefore, there was no target focus
in providing recasts. They were provided extensively and randomly depending mainly on the
researcher’s common sense intuitions and experience as is usually done in EFL classroom
settings.
Regarding their characteristics, the recasts provided in the study met all of the following
criteria: (a) they were provided immediately after participants’ erroneous productions; (b) they
were repetitions of all or part of the participants’ initial utterances, plus reformulations of
students’ erroneous productions; (c) and they did not add or change any information from the
participants’ initial target-like utterances, except for pronouns. After all of the recasts, the
participants were given opportunities to respond. In addition to the recasts, prompts (i.e.,
clarification requests, repetitions, metalinguistic clues and elicitation) and explicit correction
were also given, as is usually done in EFL classroom settings.
5.1.2.4 Stimulated Recall
On the same day after the first session, the stimulated recall interview was conducted as
previous studies suggest that learners can recall recent activity more accurately (e.g., Egi,
2008). The stimulated recall was carried out in the students’ L1, Japanese, because the
information they were asked to deliver was complex (e.g., Nabei & Swain, 2002). The video
recorded interactions between individual participants and the researcher was shown as a
visual cue in order to elicit valid data. Before viewing the video, students were given the
following recall instruction, which was adapted from previous studies (e.g., Egi, 2004, 2008).
86
You are going to watch a video tape of the conversation session we had this
morning. While the video is playing, I will occasionally pause the tape. When
I pause the video, tell me in Japanese what you were thinking during the clip
you just saw. I’m interested in what you were thinking about at the time the
video was taken. Please try to recall what you were thinking about at the time
the video was taken not what you are thinking about now as you watch the
video. If you do not remember what you were thinking at the time, you can
say “I don’t remember”. (Translated into English by the author)
These instructions were given verbally in Japanese, after which participants received a brief
training in stimulated recall using the video of the small talk at the start of the first session.
The video was paused after any recasts, other types of feedback, and after some correct
utterances randomly selected as distracters (AI-Surmi, 2012; Egi, 2008). The picture used in
the picture description activity was also presented to the students to facilitate recall of
thoughts (AI-Surmi, 2012; Egi, 2008). The interviewer listened passively to the participants’
recall without being a conversational partner who could ask leading questions (Egi, 2008;
Gass & Mackey, 2000).The whole session was audio and video taped, and all recordings were
transcribed and re-checked by the author to ensure their accuracy.
5.1.2.5 Data Analyses
5.1.2.5.1Coding
Learners’ responses after recasts were categorized based on previous studies (e.g., Egi,
2010; Lyster & Ranta, 1997) in Table 5.3.
87
Table 5.3: Uptake types and definitions
Uptake type Definitions
Repair The learner successfully corrected the original error after the recast.
Needs-repair The learner repeated the same error or made another error after the recast.
No uptake The learner did not show any response following the recast
Acknowledgement
The learner simply acknowledged the recast
(e.g., by saying “yes”, “no”, “I see”or by nodding.)
In Lyster and Ranta (1997) and Egi (2010), acknowledgment was included in the category of
needs-repair. In this study, however, acknowledgement was coded as an independent
category because, as mentioned earlier, the degree of noticing in acknowledgement can be
different from that in repeating the same error or making another error.
Learners’ perception of recasts from the stimulated recall interview data were coded as
“noticing” when learners’ comments indicated that they recognized the corrective intention
of recasts and attended to the linguistic problems of their initial utterances (Gass, 1997;
Schmidt, 1990). This is based on Schmidt’s Noticing Hypothesis (1990, 2001), which
suggests that learning occurs when learners notice the gap between what they produced and
the recasts received. Following Egi, (2004) and Nabei and Swain (2002), other cases were
coded as: 1) attending to meaning; 2) attending to other linguistic aspects; 3) no
understanding; 4) no memory; 5) other. In these previous studies, “no understanding” was
not identified as a category. However, in the current study students often reported not
understanding the aim or intention of recasts, leading to the inclusion of this category. These
codes are summarized in Table 5.4:
88
Table 5.4: Coding of learners’ perceptions and definitions
Types of perception Definitions
Noticing recasts
Cases where the learners’ comments indicated they had paid attention to
the fact that their initial utterances were problematic and found the gap
with the recasts (e.g., “The teacher said “the child” and I realized I
mistakenly used the plural form”).
Attending to meaning
Cases where the learners' comments indicated that they had reflected upon
the contents of the discussion (e.g., “I thought the teacher wondered if
what I had said was a joke”).
Attending to other linguistic
aspects
Cases where the learners' comments indicated that they had paid attention
to linguistic items other than what the recasts had targeted (e.g., “I thought
my word choice was wrong”).
No understanding
Cases where the learners' comments indicated that they had not understood
what the recasts intended. (e.g., “I could not understand why the teacher
said so”).
No memory
Cases where the learners could not remember their own thoughts at the
moment the recasts were given (e.g., “I just cannot remember”).
Other
Cases where the learners' comments could not be classified into any of the
categories above (e.g., the teacher said “had”, which is what I actually had
said, I thought).
The coding was conducted by the researcher using the transcriptions, and redone a week after
the first classification. This method of classification follows Alderson, Clapham and Wall
(1995), who assert that multiple rating sessions increase the reliability of rating. Where there
were four cases of discrepancies between the two ratings, a second rater, a male graduate
89
student majoring in English education, was invited to rate them. After discussion between the
author and the second rater, the disagreement was resolved.
5.1.2.5.2 Statistical Analyses
In addition to reporting the raw frequencies and percentages, univariate and bivariate
chi-square statistics were conducted to examine whether there were statistical differences in
frequencies. Due to the small sample data, an effect size analysis was employed in order to
interpret the data more accurately. Values of effect sizes of “w”(univariate) and
“φ”(bivariate)were interpreted as follows: small(0.1＜w, φ＜0.3); medium (0.3＜w, φ＜0.5);
large (0.5＜w, φ), following Cohen (1988).
5.1.3 Results and Discussion
5.1.3.1 Did Noticing Occur When Learners 1) Repaired, 2) Repeated the Same Error or
Made Another Error, 3) Failed to Respond to the Recasts, 4) Acknowledged the
recasts?(RQ1)
The interaction between the researcher and each of the participants in this study lasted 120
minutes in total and resulted in a total of 70 recasts. Thirty four of them (49%) were followed
by repair, 9(13%) resulted in needs-repair, 15(21%) in no uptake, and 12 (17%) were followed
by acknowledgement. Table 5.5 summarizes the raw frequencies of repair, needs-repair, no
uptake and acknowledgement by each person:
90
Table 5.5: Raw frequencies of repair, needs-repair, no uptake and acknowledgement
Recast Repair Needs-repair No uptake Acknowledgement
Kanako 25 13 4 4 4
Yuki 15 7 2 4 2
Kouki 30 14 3 7 6
Total 70 34(49%) 9(13%) 15(21%) 12(17%)
The first research question asked whether noticing occurred when learners 1) repaired, 2)
repeated the same error or made another error (needs-repair), 3) failed to respond to the
recasts (no uptake), or 4) acknowledged the recasts (acknowledgement). Table 5.6 shows the
raw frequencies of repair, needs-repair, no uptake and acknowledgement with the frequencies
of noticing and no noticing:
Table 5.6: Raw frequencies of repair, needs-repair, no uptake and acknowledgement with the
frequencies of noticing and no noticing.
Recast Repair Needs -repair No uptake Acknowledgement
Noticing No noticing Noticing No noticing Noticing No noticing Noticing No noticing
Kanako 25 10 3 0 4 1 3 1 3
Yuki 15 5 2 0 2 0 4 0 2
Kouki 30 12 2 0 3 2 5 0 6
Total 70 27 7 0 9 3 12 1 11
To calculate the percentage of noticing in cases of repair, needs-repair, no uptake and
acknowledgement, each of the frequencies for the three students were combined. This
measurement was regarded as valid, as their English learning backgrounds and English
91
proficiencies were not so different. Table 5.7 summarizes the percentages of noticing of repair,
needs-repair, no uptake and acknowledgement:
Table 5.7: Percentages of noticing of repair, no uptake and acknowledgement
Total
Repair
34
Needs-Repair
9
No Uptake
15
Acknowledgement
12
n % n % n % n %
Noticing 27 79% 0 0% 3 20% 1 8%
The results show that 79% of repairs were accompanied by noticing, and even when there
was no uptake, 20% of these cases were noticed by participants. Only one case of
acknowledgement (8%) was reported noticed, and there was no noticing in the case of
needs-repair.
The first research question was motivated by the desire to establish a valid measurement
of the effectiveness of recasts. To examine whether counting repair is a valid measurement of
the effectiveness of recasts (e.g., Lyster, 1998b; Lyster & Ranta, 1997), we looked at whether
statistically significant noticing happened when participants repaired. Out of 34 cases of
repair, noticing happened in 27 cases, and in 7 cases it did not happen. A chi-square analysis
found that there was a statistically significant difference between them with a large effect
size(χ2(1)＝11.76 p＝.00 w＝.59), confirming that learners’ repairs were closely related to
noticing. This implies that when learners repair their initial errors after recasts, it is
significantly more likely that they noticed the recasts.
In the study, 70 recasts were provided among which 34 of them were repaired and 36 were
not repaired. As for noticing, 31 were noticed and 39 were unnoticed. To examine whether the
effectiveness of recasts measured by repair and noticing are different, we looked at whether
92
there was a statistically significant difference in frequencies between repair and noticing
(repair, 34/70, noticing, 31/70). Chi-square results show that there was not a statistically
significant difference between them with a small effect size（χ2(1)=0.26, p =.74, φ= .04）,
meaning that the frequencies of repair and noticing were not statistically different. The result
was compatible with Egi (2010), which showed that when learners successfully repaired their
errors after recasts, they were more likely to notice the corrective intention of the recasts, as
well as the gap between their initial problematic utterances and the recasts. In her study, 75%
of repairs were accompanied by noticing, which occurred in 79% of the repair instances in the
current study.
The high noticing rate in repair may be attributed to the fact that students are learning
English in an EFL environment in which accuracy is regarded as crucial (e.g., Yoshida, 2002).
Such learners are highly motivated to get high scores on written tests, which primarily
measure accurate grammatical and lexical knowledge of English rather than communicative
language ability (e.g., Yashima, Zenuck-Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004). In a stimulated recall
interview, one student clearly mentioned that she felt it important to revise her initial utterance
in the correct form if she noticed errors after recasts.
In the case of needs-repair, noticing did not occur even once. This is incompatible with
Egi (2010), who mentions that learners’ perceptions were not so different regardless of
success or failure in repairing, in reference to Swain’s (2005) assertion that the process of
producing output itself facilitates L2 learning. In the current study, however, students may not
have benefitted from producing output in needs-repair cases because they did not perceive the
recasts at all. It can be argued that they repeated the same errors or made different ones
because they did not notice the recasts, which indicates the importance of noticing.
As for the 15 instances of no uptake, noticing occurred three times (20%). The frequencies
between noticing (three instances) and no noticing (12 instances) were found via chi-square
93
analysis to have a statistically significant difference between them with a large effect
size(χ2(1)＝5.40 p＝.02 w＝.60), which means that when learners did not notice recasts,
uptake was less likely to happen. This supports Egi (2010), which reported that learners were
significantly less likely to notice recasts in no uptake cases compared to repair cases.
As for the issue of whether acknowledgement can be regarded as a favorable response in
the process of learning (Sato, 2009a), out of 12 cases of acknowledgement, noticing occurred
only once. Chi-square analysis discerned a statistically significant difference in the
frequencies between acknowledgement with noticing and without noticing with a large effect
size (χ2(1)＝8.33, p＝.00, w＝.83), meaning that when learners acknowledged, it was
significantly less likely that they noticed the recasts. As previously commented, it may be
more likely that students correct their initial errors if they actually notice recasts. This implies
that when learners just acknowledge recasts by saying “yes,” “mm”, or nodding, they do not
notice them. This result also implies that in measuring the effectiveness of recasts,
acknowledgement should not be counted as a successful move. These results therefore suggest,
in answer to the first research question, that counting repair is a valid measurement of the
effectiveness of recasts.
5.1.3.2 What are Learners’ Perceptions of Recasts? (RQ2)
5.1.3.2.1 Perception of Recasts
The second research question examined how learners perceive recasts other than by
noticing. As Table 8 shows, learners noticed 31 recasts (44%) out of 70 in total. In 21 cases
(30%), they attended to meaning. In 12 cases (17%), learners did not understand the recasts,
and only once did they attend to other linguistic aspects. In four cases (6%), they could not
remember what they thought at the moment when the recasts were given.
94
Table 5.8: Perception to recasts
Kanako Yuki Kouki Total
Noticing recasts 12 5 14 31(44%)
Attending to meaning 8 5 8 21(30%)
Attending to other linguistic aspects 0 1 0 1(1.4%)
No understanding 4 3 5 12(17%)
No memory 1 1 2 4(6%)
Other 0 0 1 1(1.4%)
Total 25 15 30 70
Among the 39 no noticing situations, “attending to meaning” stands at 54%, followed by “no
understanding ”at 31%, “no memory” at 10%, and “attending to other linguistic aspects” and
“other” at 2.6% each.
Table 5.9: Perception other than noticing
Attending
to
meaning
Attending to
other
linguistic
aspects
No understanding No memory Other
Frequencies and
percentages
21(54%) 1(2.6%) 12(31%) 4(10%) 1(2.6%)
5.1.3.2.2 Noticing Recasts
The following are examples of noticing recasts and the participants’ recall in the
95
stimulated recall interview.
Excerpt 1 (Kanako, Sep.30)
Kanako: The children don’t go outside to play with his friends.
Researcher: The child?
Kanako: Yes. The child don’t, doesn’t go outside.
Kanako’s recall:
The teacher said “the child”, and I realized I had mistakenly used the plural form.5
Excerpt 2 (Yuki, October, 4)
Y: I think it was really great for me because I changed a little bit and knew a lot of things.
R: Oh, you learned a lot of things.
Y: I learned a lot in America.
Yuki’s recall
When I heard the teacher saying “learned”, I remembered that in expressing movement or
action, “learn” is better than “know”.
As the above excerpts show, when students noticed recasts and successfully corrected their
problematic initial utterances, in 24 out of 31 cases their comments implied they had used
their learned or partially learned explicit knowledge, which is the conscious knowledge about
language that learners can potentially verbalize (e.g., Ellis, 2003). Such deduction is valid, if
5 The original comments in the stimulated recall were all in Japanese.
96
we refer to, for example, Krashen (1985), who points out that L2 learners can monitor their
own production consciously by using their explicit knowledge. In the study, as enough time
was given to students to monitor their own utterances and repair, it can be interpreted that
they mainly exercised explicit knowledge. This would imply the importance of explicit
knowledge in noticing recasts. However, in the rest of the seven cases, the participants might
have also used implicit knowledge, which is the intuitive knowledge of language (e.g., Ellis,
2003), in repairing their initial errors after recasts. Further study is thus needed to focus on the
roles of different types of knowledge in repairing.
5.1.3.2.3 Attending to Meaning
In the case of no noticing, students attended to meaning most (54%).
Excerpt 3 (Kouki, October, 26)
K: I thought Korea might be a good place to learn many things including English. So I really
want to go.
R: You really wanted to go there to learn English, too?
K: Because many classes are conducted in English.
Kouki’s recall
I thought the teacher wanted to confirm that I really wanted to go to Korea to learn English,
so I added the reason.
As this excerpt shows, when learners’ erroneous utterances did not cause communication
breakdown, they often perceived recasts as confirmation (Lyster, 1998a, 2007), as agreement
or disagreement, or as a response (Sato, 2006). As recasts help maintain the flow of
97
communication, keeping learners’ attention on content (Lyster, 2007), it may not be so easy
for learners to attend at the same time to the form of the erroneous utterances to which recasts
were provided.
5.1.3.2.4 Attending to Other Linguistic Aspects
In only one case, a student attended to a linguistic aspect to which the recast was not
targeted.
Excerpt 4 (Yuki, October, 4)
Y: There was a man who was working the office.
R: Working in the office?
Y: Company, and he could help his father’s job.
Yuki’s recall
I said “office” but thought it might be wrong or unsuitable, so I changed it to “company”.
In the excerpt, Yuki did not notice that a preposition was missing before “the office”, but
instead she thought the use of “office” was problematic. It appears that Yuki did not have
confidence in the use of “office”, and as the word was included in the recast, this lead her not
to add a preposition but to change the word “office” to “company”. This implies that when
recasts are provided, learners can attend to grammatical items, words, or expressions which
they do not have the confidence to use. However, this type of perception of recasts was
recorded only once.
98
5.1.3.2.5 No Understanding
Among no noticing cases, one-third was no understanding in which students did not
understand the aim or intention of recasts.
Excerpt 5 (Kanako, Sep.30)
K: She saw “Computer education for kids.”
R: She read the book.
K: The book for computer education.
Kanoko’s recall:
When the teacher corrected my mistake, I did not realize that I had made a mistake. I felt a
little bit strange or unnatural that the teacher said so then. Now I understand that I made a
mistake. I should have said “read” instead of “saw”.
Excerpt 6 (Kouki, October, 26)
K: She was just wanted her son to learn how to use the computer.
R: His mother wanted him to learn the computer.
K: Yes. Computer.
Kouki’s recall;
I don’t know why the teacher repeated what I meant. Maybe it was important? I don’t know.
In the 12 instances of no understanding, students directly reported or implied in 10 cases that
they did not recognize they had made a mistake or an error at the moment when the recasts
were provided. This implies that if students cannot monitor their own production to detect
99
mistakes or errors, they may not be able to understand the intended purpose of recasts. Or, as
in the rest of the cases, they may perceive recasts as comments or reactions as mentioned
above.
5.1.3.2.6 No Memory
In four cases, students reported they simply could not remember what they thought or how
they felt when the recasts were provided. The stimulated recall interview was conducted on
the very same day after the first session was conducted. However, memory decay is still a
problem, which is often discussed as a concern with retrospective reports (e.g., Egi, 2004).
5.1.3.2.7 Other
Only one case could not be classified into any of the categories above.
Excerpt 7 (Kouki, October, 26)
K: He has been to Japan many times before we met in Korea.
R: He had been to Japan. He had visited Japan before you met.
K: Many times.
Kouki’s recall;
The teacher used the past perfect tense in order to put emphasis on the use in the context. As I
thought then that I had used it correctly, I felt it a little strange. But now I know I made a
mistake. I said “has” where I should have said “had”.
From his recall, it would appear that Kouki had just made a mistake without noticing it, and
then did not notice the recast. We cannot generalize from only this one case, but still it may
100
imply that learners sometimes may not notice recasts because they are not consciously aware
of having made a mistake or an error.
5.1.3.3 Cases of Repair Without Noticing and No Uptake with Noticing
5.1.3.3.1 Repair Without Noticing
Repair was successfully done seven times, even without noticing reported.
Excerpt 8 (Kanako, Sep.30)
R: Who do you look up to? And why?
K: My piano teacher. Because she… she …, Why? She is of course good at playing music,
playing piano.
R: Playing the piano.
K: Playing the piano. She always, she can always plays the piano very well.
Kanako’s recall:
I thought the teacher wanted more explanation about why I respect her.
In this excerpt, Kanako’s attention was on the meaning and did not understand the purpose of
the recast. However, she just automatically repeated the recast even though she did not have
explicit understanding that “the” was needed before “piano”.6 Among seven cases of repair
without noticing, in five cases, students were attending to meaning. In the next excerpt, Yuki
did not understand the recast at all.
6 Her lack of explicit knowledge that “the” should be put before the instrument was confirmed in the interview. However,
this may raise an issue. In Japan, following pedagogical grammar (e.g., Shimozaki,et al, 2008), many learners have been
often taught that “the” is needed before instruments. In descriptive grammar, however, that may not be the case. In fact, an
informant mentioned that “she can play piano” sounds natural. Although beyond the scope of the current study, this can be
worth further investigation.
101
Excerpt 9 (Yuki, October, 4)
Y: The Spanish student was a trouble maker. We every… often, we often fight with her.
R: Oh, you often fought with her.
Y: Yes. Fought with her.
Yuki’s recall; I didn’t know why the teacher said, “You often fought with her.” I don’t know
why but I just repeated what the teacher said.
In this except, Yuki just automatically repeated the recast even though she did not know that
the past form of “fight” is “fought”.7 Among seven cases of repair without noticing, in two
cases, students did not understand the recast at all. As is shown in these excerpts, there are
still repair cases for which learners did not notice the recasts, which is pointed out in the
previous studies (e.g., Egi, 2010; Elli, Basturkmen & Loewen, 2001).
5.1.3.3.2 No Uptake With Noticing
In three cases, students noticed the recast but could not show uptake.
Excerpt 10 (Kanako, Sep.30)
K: I think, … I like not sports but… I was in the brass band club. It was not comparable.
S: OK, it was not competitive?
K: Yes. We were like good friends. We had to win the contest.
Kanako’s recall; I wanted to mean “competitive” and noticed my mispronunciation. But I did
7 This was confirmed in the interview.
102
not correct it because I still did not know how to pronounce it.
Excerpt 11 (Kouki, October, 26)
K: Actually, in Korea, my major… I was belong to English literature.
R: You belonged to?
K: English literature department?
Kouki’s recall: I found that “I was belong to” was wrong and what the teacher said was right.
But I just avoided using it because I was not confident to say it correctly.
Excerpt 12 (Kouki, October, 26)
K: I had a chance to introduce my student about my favorite, favorite book.
R: You had a chance to introduce your favorite book to your student.
K:… The student liked it.
Kouki’s recall: I clearly understood what the teacher said and I found that my use of
“introduce” was wrong. But, I thought I would make a mistake again because the sentence
was very long, and tried not to use “introduce” again.
These three excerpts showed that the students were hesitant to correct their initial errors even
after they noticed the recasts because of their lack of confidence in or explicit knowledge
about the targeted words or expressions. This can imply that recasts sometime may not lead to
learners’ uptake or repair even when they are noticed if learners think they cannot
successfully utilize the recast suggested.
We found that there were cases of repair without noticing and no uptake with noticing.
103
However, it does not dismiss the validity of counting repair in measuring the effectiveness of
recasts because these frequencies were low, and previous analyses showed the frequencies of
repair and noticing were not statistically different.
5.1.4 Conclusion
This study investigated learners’ noticing of recasts to discern a valid measurement of the
effectiveness of recasts. The findings of the study provide support for the claim that learner
repair is an indicator of noticing, while mere acknowledgement is not.
Three learners’ stimulated recall comments showed how learners perceive recasts other
than by noticing, which implies the importance of noticing recasts for learning. Although this
maybe speculation, the participants’ comments suggest the importance of explicit knowledge
of the items which recasts target so that learners can successfully repair their initial
problematic utterances. This may then suggest that it is important for teachers to create a
learning environment where Japanese EFL learners can learn explicit knowledge.
5.2 Study 6: Examining the Effects of Recasts Types on Noticing.
5.2.1 Purpose of the Study
Previous studies revealed that the effectiveness of recasts measured by learners’ successful
uptake or repair (i.e., learners’ correct reformulation of an error occurring immediately after a
recast) can differ by the recast type. It has been reported that learners are less likely to repair
after grammatical recasts (i.e., recasts to grammatical errors) than lexical and phonological
recasts (e.g., Kim & Han, 2007; Trofimovich, Ammar, & Gatbonton, 2007; Sato, 2009a;
Williams, 1999). In chapter 4, Study 2 (Sato, 2009a) compared the effects of recasts types on
Japanese EFL learner repair, and I cautiously suggested that learners’ explicit knowledge can
be a precondition to respond successfully to recasts directed at grammatical errors, although
104
stimulated recall data was not obtained for the study. As for the effects of recasts, judging by
the difference between learners’ utterances and recasts, Study 2 (Sato, 2009a) also revealed
the more conducive effect of single-change recasts compared to multiple-change recasts.
From the results of previous studies, it can be concluded that short recasts are more easily
noticed by learners than long recasts, leading them to repair previous erroneous utterances
(e.g., Egi, 2007; Philp, 2003; Sato, 2009a; Sheen, 2006). Egi (2007) found, through a
stimulated recall session, that learners failed to perceive long recasts as corrective but that this
was not the case with shorter recasts, thus concluding long recasts were less conducive. Philp
(2003) explains that long recasts are difficult to retain in working memory as they may
overload the time limitation of the phonological store. It can be summarized that long recasts
are less effective due to the overloaded nature.
Previous studies explored the effects of recasts in the following manners: according to
recasts-types (e.g., Kim & Han, 2007; Phip, 2003; Trofimovich, Ammar, & Gatbonton, 2007;
Sato, 2009a; Williams, 1999); by using stimulated recall interviews (e.g., Egi, 2010; Mackey,
et al, 2000; Yoshida, 2010). However, the effects of recasts on Japanese EFL learners’
noticing (e.g., Loewen & Nabei, 2007; Muranoi, 2000; Sato, 2009a) have not fully been
investigated by the recast-type with a stimulated recall method. With this background, the
following research questions have been formulated for this study:
RQ1. How effective are recasts for high intermediate–level Japanese university students’
noticing according to error types?
RQ2. How effective are recasts for high intermediate–level Japanese university students’
noticing according to the degree of differences?
RQ3. How effective are recasts for high intermediate–level Japanese university students’
noticing according to the length?
105
This study (Sato, 2013b) was also aimed at analyzing learners’ noticing qualitatively through
comments provided in the stimulated interviews.
5.2.2 Method
5.2.2.1 Participants and Procedure
Participants and procedures are the same as ones in Study 5: Data obtained in Study 5 were
used to be analyzed for the purposes of this study.
5.2.2.2 Data Analysis
5.2.2.2.1 Error Types
Following Lyster and Ranta (1997), students’ errors to which recasts were given were
categorized as grammatical errors, lexical errors, and phonological errors: 1) Grammatical
errors are errors in the use or lack of determiners, particles, verb forms, or word order; 2)
Lexical errors include inappropriate, imprecise, or inaccurate choices of lexical items; 3)
Phonological errors address inappropriate, imprecise, or inaccurate pronunciation. In cases
where a student produced an utterance with more than one type of error, it was coded as the
error type on which the recast focused.
5.2.2.2.2 Degree of difference
The number of changes was counted and coded to examine the effects of the degree of
difference between the learner’s initial utterance and the recast, following Philp (2003). For
this study, however, recasts were divided into two categories according to whether the recast
had only a single change or more than one change. This decision was made referring to Sato
(2006, 2009a), which revealed that recasts with more than one change were less likely to be
106
noticed by the learners. Conversion of the subject was not counted as a change and inversion
counted as one change.
5.2.2.2.3 Lengths
Based on previous studies (e.g., Philp, 2003, Sato, 2009a), recasts were also classified as
long or short according to the number of morphemes, and recasts with more than five
morphemes were coded as long.
5.2.2.3 Noticing
“Noticing” was coded when learners’ comments obtained through the recall indicated that
they had recognized the corrective intention of recasts and attended to the linguistic problems
of their initial utterances (e.g. “The teacher said “the child” and I realized I mistakenly used
the plural form”) (Gass, 1997; Schmidt, 1990). This is based on Schmidt’s Noticing
Hypothesis (1990, 2001), which suggests that learning occurs when learners notice the gap
between what they produced and the recasts received.
The researcher conducted the coding using the transcriptions, and did it again a week after
the first classification, following Alderson, Clapham, and Wall (1995), who assert that
multiple rating sessions increase reliability. Where there were four cases of discrepancies
between the two ratings, a second rater, a graduate student majoring in English Education,
checked them. After discussion between the author and the second rater, the disagreements
were resolved.
5.2.2.4 Statistical analyses
In addition to reporting the raw frequencies and percentages, univariate and bivariate
chi-square statistics were conducted to examine whether there were statistical differences in
107
frequencies. Due to the small sample data, an effect size analysis was employed in order to
interpret the data more accurately. Values of effect sizes of “w”(univariate) and
“φ”(bivariate)were interpreted as follows: small(0.1＜w, φ＜0.3); medium (0.3＜w, φ＜0.5);
large (0.5＜w, φ), following Cohen (1988).
5.2.3 Results and Discussion
5.2.3.1 How Effective Are Recasts for High Intermediate–level Japanese University
Students’ Noticing According to Error Types? (RQ1)
The first research question asked about learners’ noticing according to error types. The
interaction between the researcher and each of the participants in this study lasted 120
minutes in total and resulted in a total of 70 recasts. To calculate the percentage of noticing,
each of the frequencies for the three students was combined. As their English learning
backgrounds and English proficiencies were not so different, this measurement was regarded
as valid in this study. Table 5.10 summarizes the frequencies and the percentages of noticing
according to error types:
Table 5.10: Number of recasts, noticing, no noticing, and success rate measured by noticing
(Error Type)
Type Recast Noticing No noticing Success Rate
Grammar 53 18 35 34%
Lexical 15 11 4 73%
Phonological 2 2 0 100%
Total 70 31 39 44%
Grammatical recasts were provided most, followed by lexical, with only two phonological
108
recasts. The rate of noticing was the highest with phonological recasts (100%) as both of these
were noticed. The facilitative effects of phonological recasts can be explained by their
salience and unequivocalness (Lyster, 1998b).
Excerpt 1 (Kouki, October, 26)
Kouki: I will “launch” (pronounced as lunch) my business.
Researcher: Pardon?
Kouki: “Launch” (repeated the same mispronunciation) my business.
Researcher: You want to “launch” your own business. ←recast
Kouki: Yes. I want to “launch, launch” (pronounced correctly) my business.
Kouki’s recall
When I heard the teacher pronouncing “launch”, I remembered the correct pronunciation of
the word.
In this excerpt, as Kouki had explicit knowledge of the meaning of “launch” and partially
acquired knowledge of the pronunciation, it was not difficult for him to notice and correct his
mistake. In another example, Kanako noticed the recast but could not repair her
pronunciation.
Excerpt 2 (Kanako, Sep.30)
Researcher: Do you think that competitive sports build characters in children?
Kanako: … I was in the brass band club, but it was not “competitive” (sounded like
comparative)
Researcher: OK, it was not competitive? ←recast
109
Kanako: Yes. We were like good friends. We had to win the contest.
Kanako’s recall:
I wanted to mean “competitive” and noticed my mispronunciation. But I did not correct it
because I still did not know how to pronounce it.
These two excerpts may imply that the noticing of phonological recasts may not be difficult,
though repair appears to require that learners at least possess partially acquired explicit
knowledge of the pronunciation. Although beyond the scope of the current investigation,
further study is needed to explore the roles of explicit pronunciation knowledge in noticing
and its relation to repair.
Lexical recasts comprised 73% of the noticing recorded, and grammatical, 34%.
Chi-square analysis discerned a statistically significant difference in noticing between
grammatical and lexical recasts with a medium effect size (χ2 (1) =7.41, p =.02, φ= .33).
These results were compatible with previous studies that showed lower effectiveness of
grammatical recasts compared to lexical and phonological recasts as measured by learners’
successful uptake or repair (e.g., Kim & Han, 2007; Mackey, Gass, & McDonough, 2000;
Trofimovich, Ammar, & Gatbonton, 2007; Lyster, 1998b; Sato, 2009a; Williams, 1999).
The students were high intermediate learners who had already passed the pre-first grade of
the STEP Test, and therefore could be assumed to possess a lot of explicit knowledge of
English grammar. In a previous study, Sato (2009a) speculated that explicit knowledge can
lead to the noticing of grammatical recasts. This is supported by Saito and Lyster (2012), who
argue that learners with ‘good grammatical knowledge’ (p.604) can monitor their utterances.
However, in the current study, only 18 out of 54 grammatical recasts were noticed.
110
Excerpt 3 (Yuki, October, 4)
Kouki: The student lived in the same dorm and she is seventeen.
Researcher: She was seventeen? ←recast
Kouki: Yes. Younger.
Yuki’s recall
I thought the teacher just wanted to confirm that the student was so young. I did not notice my
mistake about tense.
Excerpt 4 (Kanako, Sep, 30)
Kanako: If I were the teacher, I don’t … I don’t scold the child.
Researcher: You would not scold. ←recast
Kouki: Yes. If I were her.
Kanako’s recall
As I knew the rule, I used the subjunctive past, but I didn’t notice that I had made a mistake
then.
Both recalls imply that learners are likely to perceive grammatical recasts as comments on
content or as confirmation checks because of their unsalient and equivocal nature.
Grammatical errors can less seriously interfere with understanding than lexical and
pronunciation errors (Mackey et al, 2000), and in the current study, I, as a researcher, did not
experience interference of understanding caused by these grammatical errors. This must have
111
made these grammatical recasts unsalient and equivocal. It also can be assumed that it is
unlikely that learners monitor their utterances in order to correct grammatical errors to which
recasts are given.
5.2.3.2 How Effective Are Recasts for High Intermediate–level Japanese University
Students’ Noticing According to the Degree of Differences? (RQ2)
The second research question examined whether there was a difference in learners’
noticing according to the degree of difference between learners’ erroneous utterances and the
recasts (i.e., one change vs. more than one change). Recasts with one change were provided
49 times, among which 23 recasts were noticed, and recasts with more than two changes were
given 21 times, with 8 such recasts noticed.
Table 5.11: Number of Recasts, Noticing, No noticing, and Success Rate measured by noticing
(number of changes)
Type Recast Noticing No noticing Success Rate
One change 49 23 26 47%
More than one
change
21 8 13 38%
Total 70 31 39 44%
Although one change recasts were noticed more than multiple change recasts, chi-square
analysis revealed there was not a statistically significant difference with a small effect size
(χ2(1)=0.47, p =.67, φ= .08). The result can be interpreted as incompatible both with
observational and introspective research which showed that recasts with fewer changes are
more likely to be noticed (e.g., Egi, 2007; Kim & Han, 2007; Philp, 2003; Sato, 2006, 2009a;
112
Sheen, 2006).
5.2.3.3 How Effective are Recasts for High Intermediate–level Japanese University
Students’ Noticing According to the Length? (RQ3)
As for the examination into the effect of length on noticing (RQ3), short recasts (with less
than six morphemes) were provided 48 times, among which 23 recasts were noticed, and long
recasts (with more than five morphemes) were given 22 times, with 8 such recasts noticed.
Table 5.12: Number of Recasts, Noticing, No noticing, and Success Rate measured by noticing
(length)
Type Recast Noticing No noticing Success Rate
Short 48 23 25 48%
Long 22 8 14 36%
Total 70 31 39 44%
Although short recasts were provided more than long recasts, with a higher success rate,
chi-square analysis revealed that there was not a statistically significant difference in noticing
between short recasts and long ones with a small effect size (χ2(1) =0.30, p =.77, φ= .07). This
result is not compatible with previous research which showed that, regardless of the noticing
measure, shorter recasts are more noticeable (e.g., Egi, 2007; Lyster, 1998a; Philp, 2003; Sato,
2009; Sheen, 2006). The following shows noticing of a long, multiple-change recast.
Excerpt 4 (Kanako, Sep.30)
Kanako: We… our eyes should not watch the Internet over one hour. It damaged.
Researcher: You think our eyes can be hurt. ←recast
Kanako: Yes. Eyes can be easily hurt by watching it.
113
Kanako’s recall:
When my teacher said, “can be hurt”, I realized that I should have used the passive voice and
that the subject should be “eyes”.
Her comment implies that as she had no difficulty understanding the long, multiple-change
recast, and that as she had explicit knowledge of how to use the passive voice, she noticed the
gap and successfully repaired her utterance. As for why short single-change recasts appear to
have more enhanced effect than long multiple-change recasts, Philp (2003) contends that long
multiple-change recasts are beyond learners’ proficiency levels, or learners are not
developmentally ready to notice those recasts. Mackey and Philp (1998) have also provided
proof to claim that recasts are effective for advanced learners who have the knowledge and
proficiency needed to notice recasts. The participants in the current study were all relatively
higher-level learners, which must have contributed to their noticing of even long,
multiple-change recasts.
5.2.4 Conclusion
The current study investigated the effects of recasts on learners’ noticing according to
recast features. As previous research found, the stimulated recall comments indicated the
difficulty of noticing grammatical recasts compared to lexical and phonological ones. This is
an important implication for teachers in providing recasts to students. As for the effects of the
degree of difference and the length of recasts, three participants noticed long and
multiple-change recasts to the almost same degree as short and single-change recasts. This
implies that, although it is generally accepted that short and single-change recasts are more
noticeable in leading learners to repair, teachers may not have to be too worried about the
114
degree of difference and the length of recasts in providing them to relatively higher-level
learners.
5.3 Summary of Chapter 5
Study 5 concluded that learner repair is an indicator of noticing, while mere
acknowledgement is not. However, this should be considered cautiously. In concluding that
counting repair is a valid measurement for the effectiveness of recasts, it is arguable that the
results of the statistical analyses just showed that learners’ repair was significantly related to
the existence of noticing, without strongly supporting the conclusion. In Study 6, analysis of
three learners’ stimulated recall comments confirmed that the effects of recasts on learners’
noticing can be different according to error types (i.e., grammatical, lexical or phonological)
but that is not the case of recast features (i.e., degree of change and length). However, I have
to admit that there are some limitations in the studies. One of the great limitations is that the
number of the participants was admittedly small. It can be argued that individual differences,
such as proficiency level, working memory, grammatical sensitivity, and motivation can
interact with learners’ ability to notice recasts. Future studies should be conducted with more
participants of different English proficiency levels. If further investigation supports the
findings and analyses of the results presented herein, recasts may become more effectively
utilized in the Japanese EFL environments.
115
Chapter 6
Written Recasts
This chapter reports three studies. Study 7(Sato, 2008a) examined the relationship
between fluency and accuracy in Japanese high school students’ writing. Studies 8(Sato,
2012b) and 9(Sato, 2011) explored into the effects of written recasts on Japanese university
students.
6.1 Study 7: The Relationship Between Fluency and Accuracy in Writing
6.1.1 Introduction
English education in Japan has focused on accuracy, and has always been intolerant of
errors. One reason for this is that accuracy is expected of learners in tests (Yoshida, 2002). In
writing classes, the primary focus has been on formal accuracy rather than fluency. Teachers
usually employ controlled activities from authorized textbooks. Such activities included
fill-in-the-blanks, sentence joining, item replacement, imitation, and manipulation of
elaborately constructed model sentences aiming at acquiring sentence patterns, vocabulary
and grammatical rules. However, as the importance of developing students’ communicative
skills has been emphasized by our globalized society in which we have to learn and use
English for the purpose of communication, fluency is becoming more and more important
since it is a crucial factor in producing the language in real time (Ellis & Barkhuizen, 2005).
When we take into consideration the fact that too much emphasis on accuracy hinders
communication or fluency, we may have to move from accuracy-oriented to fluency-oriented
116
teaching. Yoshida mentions that learning to convey meaning and intentions even with
mistakes is more important than simply knowing the correct forms. However, some educators
and researchers question the effectiveness of, or the need for communication and
fluency-oriented teaching. Saita (2003) analyzed the English proficiency of students who had
studied English in a communication-oriented class in their junior high school and found that
their English proficiency was much lower than former students who had studied English in a
traditional accuracy-oriented class. Although communication-oriented teaching is becoming
more and more popular, we can see a swing of the pendulum with regard to the importance of
accuracy in grammar-oriented teaching. There seems to be a controversy over the transition
from the traditional, accuracy-oriented English class to the fluency-oriented one. Therefore, a
question arises as to whether accuracy is incompatible with fluency or not. It would be ideal if
we could improve students’ English proficiency both in terms of accuracy and fluency. In this
study we examine the relationship of accuracy to fluency specifically in Japanese high school
students’ writing so that we can reconsider what the most effective teaching way to enhance
their English proficiency would be.
6.1.2 Background
6.1.2.1 Accuracy
Accuracy is defined by Skehan (1996) as the extent to which the target language is
produced in relation to the rule system and how well the learner can handle whatever level of
interlanguage complexity he/she has achieved. Ellis (1987, 2003) mentions that accuracy
requires syntactic processing with the availability of planning time. In writing, accuracy
concerns how precisely the learner can write what he/ she wants to write. We have seen that
Japanese high school students tend to chase mainly grammatical accuracy in writing, trying
not to make any mistakes so that their writing can obtain high scores in tests. Traditional
117
form-focused instruction such as “focus-on-forms” instruction, which places a focus on forms
themselves in isolation, put more emphasis on accuracy than fluency (e.g., Long, 1991). Long
(1991) mentions that this teaching is directed at teaching pre-selected grammatical items in
activities where the students’ primary focus of attention is on form rather than meaning. In
accuracy-oriented traditional instructional settings, grammatical items are presented and
practiced in isolation, and errors are frequently corrected with accuracy given priority over
meaning (Lightbown & Spada, 1993). However, Long (1991) proposes the need to
incorporate traditional accuracy-oriented instruction into meaning-oriented communicative
language teaching. Up until now, a number of L2 teachers and researchers have recognized
the significance of meaning-oriented instruction which is termed “focus on form” (Muranoi,
2000).
6.1.2.2 Fluency
Fluency refers to learners’ ability to mobilize their system to communicate meaning in real
time, prioritizing meaning over form, and is achieved when learners can exercise strategies to
avoid or solve problems quickly (Ellis, 2003). Factors most likely to indicate fluency are as
follows: in speaking, production without undue pausing or hesitation, and in writing, a high
rate of production. Contrary to form-focused instruction aiming at developing accuracy,
meaning-focused instructions are likely to enhance fluency (e.g., Long, 1991). In
communicative activities based on meaning-focused instructions, “fluency in communication
is what counts” (Wills, 1996, p. 24), where successful communication should be prioritized
over grammatical accuracy (Hughes, 1989) and learners need to regard their errors in a
positive way, considering themselves successful if the messages are communicated (Wills,
1996). Brown and Nation (1997) insist on the importance of meaning-focused activities to
develop fluency by mentioning that learners should be provided with opportunities to practice
118
and use meaning focused-communication where they must both produce and listen to
meaningful oral communication.
In an activity aimed at developing fluency, learners should be encouraged to use language
that they already know without involving unknown vocabulary (Nation, 2001; Nation &
Meara, 2002). Since many Japanese know a lot of language but do not know how to use it,
their argument seems to be very important in the Japanese English learning environment.
6.1.2.3 The Relation Between Accuracy and Fluency
As for the relation between accuracy and fluency, there could be trade-offs in L2 learners’
production, meaning that when L2 learners attend to accuracy in their writing, it interferes
with their ability to conceptualize, formulate, and articulate messages, preventing them from
showing fluency (Ellis, 2003). Therefore a question could arise. “Which is more important,
accuracy or fluency?" It seems that accuracy has been regarded as more important than
fluency in the traditional Japanese EFL context in which students are learning English to pass
an exam requiring learners to demonstrate correct knowledge and use of English. However,
for successful communication to occur, fluency as well as accuracy is necessary as it is clear
that sentences without either accuracy or fluency can hinder communication. That is, to
enhance students’ English proficiency, both aspects must be fostered.
6.1.3 Purposes of the Study and Research Questions
As is mentioned in the previous sections, it may be difficult to foster both accuracy and
fluency at the same time, and they may be incompatible with each other because of the
trade-offs between them, though it is crucial to improve both. In the study, specifically
focusing on writing, we examine the relations between accuracy and fluency in students’
performance in writing. We also examine whether writing tasks with directions to students to
119
focus on (1) accuracy, (2) fluency and (3) without direction affect their performances in the
task. The following research questions (RQs) are examined.
RQ1. What kinds of relations are observed between accuracy and fluency in writing?
RQ2. To what extent does the direction affect students’ performances in writing?
6.1.4 Method
6.1.4.1 Participants
110 high school students (3 classes) in Hokkaido, Japan participated in the study. They
had studied English in a foreign language classroom situation. Most of them intended to go to
college and had a positive attitude toward studying English to pass the entrance exams for
university. There was not a significant difference among the three classes in the result of the
ANOVA test conducted on their scores in the term tests. The present researcher served as a
teacher in the study.
6.1.4.2 Procedures
6.1.4.2.1 Training Session
This study was conducted in three regular intact high school classes. Before the
experiment, the students went through training sessions. In these, the students practiced free
writing three times in their different English class periods for 15 minutes each. In the sessions,
one class was given the direction that their primary focus of attention was on form rather than
meaning and that they should try not to make errors in writing (Accuracy-group, N=38).
Another class was given the direction that their primary focus of attention was on meaning
rather than form and that they should not be concerned about grammatical errors too much
(Fluency-group, N=35). For the third class no direction was given in the writing activities
120
(Non-Direction group, N=37). There were two main purposes for the sessions. The first one
was to let students become accustomed to essay writing. In English writing classes, students
had mainly experienced closed, controlled activities such as direct translation from Japanese
to English, putting the primary focus on accuracy. They needed to be instructed on how they
should write paragraphs or essays in English. At the beginning of the first training session, the
teacher gave students a brief introduction about paragraph writing. The second purpose was to
let students in the accuracy and fluency groups become accustomed to essay writing focusing
on accuracy and fluency respectively. Topics of the writing practice sessions were, “My
Family”, “My Hobby”, and “My Dream.” As these activities were preparation for the
experiment, the writing was not evaluated by the teacher and no feedback was given to
students.
6.1.4.2.2 Experiment
In the experiment, students were assigned to write an essay on the topic of “My Summer
Vacation.” We regarded the topic as valid for the writing activity as it would not require
students to exercise abilities beyond English such as creativity, imagination or intelligence.
This is compatible with the statement that “we should test only writing ability and nothing
else” (Hughes, 2003, p. 90). They were given the same directions as the training sessions: the
Accuracy-group (AG) was asked to focus on accuracy, the Fluency-group (FG) on fluency,
and the Non-Direction group (NDG) was given no direction. Students were given 30 minutes
to complete the essay.
121
Table 6.1: Directions given to the groups
Group n Condition
AG 38 Primary focus of attention was on form or “Accuracy”
FG 35 Primary focus of attention was on meaning or “Fluency”
NDG 37 No direction was given
6.1.4.2.3 Scoring and Analysis
There seems to be a wide range of specific measures to quantify accuracy and fluency in
learners’ production. In measuring accuracy, we calculated the proportion of the number of
T-units without lexical and grammatical errors in the total number of T-units in the writing.
This means that the denominator was the number of T-units and the numerator was the
number of T-units which did not include lexical and grammatical errors. This measure was
taken following previous studies (e.g., Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki, & Kim, 1998), and we
decided not to count errors related to the usage of the article as this is definitely difficult even
for proficient learners. We also did not regard local spelling mistakes as errors. As for
measuring fluency, the number of words written in the essay was counted for the current study.
Although several different measurements have been used to score fluency in speech in
previous studies (e.g., counting the number of words per minute, syllables, pauses, length of
pauses, repetitions, false starts), Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) mention that counting
production rate is the only measurement to be applied to both speech and writing. In addition,
counting the number of words written in the essay is in accordance with studies in which the
number of words learners produced per minute of speaking was measured, such as
Tong-Frederics’ study (1984).
122
6.1.5. Results
6.1.5.1 What Kinds of Relations are Observed Between Accuracy and Fluency in
Writing? (RQ1)
To investigate the correlation of accuracy with fluency in writing, we examined Pearson’s
correlation coefficients for each group. Table 6.2 shows that there was a weak correlation in
the FG, a significantly weak correlation in the NDG, and little correlation in the AG.
Table 6.2: Pearson’s correlation coefficients of accuracy with fluency
Group n Pearson’s correlation
AG 38 .023
FG 35 .234
NDG 37 .385*
Note. Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)
6.1.5.2 To What Extent Does the Direction Affect Students’ Performances in Writing?
(RQ2)
Table 6.3 shows that in Accuracy, the Non-Direction group obtained the highest scores
followed by the Accuracy group and then the Fluency group. In Fluency, the Fluency group
obtained the highest scores followed by the Non-Direction group and then the Accuracy group.
SDs for fluency scores of each group were very large. To examine whether the direction
affected students’ performances in writing, we used a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
The result for accuracy showed that there was no significant difference between the three
groups (F (2,107) =1.51, P = .23). As for fluency there was a significant difference between
the three groups (F (2,107) = 4.79, P<.05).
123
Table 6.3: Descriptive Statistics of Accuracy and Fluency in the writing
Accuracy Fluency
Group n Mean SD Mean SD
AG 38 56.3 15.6 80.2 35.2
FG 35 47.8 10.3 154.9 72.4.
NDG 37 56.5 16.1 107.1 34.4
Note. Scores of Accuracy are percentages and Fluency are the number of words.
To further investigate the difference between the three groups, Tukey’s honestly
significant difference test was performed as a post-hoc test as it was appropriate to examine
the differences between each pair (AG-FG, FG-NDG, AG-NDG). Table 6.4 shows that there
was a significant difference between the FG and the AG.
Table 6.4: Tukey’s HSD Test Differences Across the three groups
Group NDG FG AG
AG .505 ns .008
FG .130 ns .008
NDG .130ns .505 ns
6.1.6 Discussion
Three groups experienced writing activities under different conditions: the AG was
required to be concerned with accuracy; the FG was encouraged to be fluent; the NDG was
not given any direction. In the experiment, they wrote an essay under the same conditions as
the training sessions so that we could examine whether directions would affect their writing
124
performances. In terms of accuracy, the results showed that there was no significant difference
among the groups. However, it was surprising that the NDG performed better than the AG. In
the NDG, students did not have to choose which to prioritize, accuracy or fluency, but they
may have put at least some importance on accuracy. Skehan (1998) mentions that when
learners are left to themselves without being given guidance, they seem to focus on form. In
the FG, students were supposed to be more concerned with fluency but they must not have
given up accuracy. The interpretation of the result is that even the NDG and the FG must have
thought or felt, consciously or unconsciously, that accuracy was important to some extent.
Students in the AG must have prioritized accuracy, but increasing accuracy in writing could
not have been an easy task because they could not perform beyond their ability (accuracy)
with the exception of those who, intentionally or strategically, avoided using some words,
expressions and grammatical items in which they did not have confidence. Japanese high
school students usually have accuracy-oriented English classes, especially in writing classes
where students are required to write correctly by using target expressions and grammatical
items, which is crucial in written tests. We assume this learning environment was reflected in
the results of the study.
As for fluency, there was a significant difference between the AG and the FG. Simply put,
students in the FG performed best from the point of view of fluency. It must be true that it was
not easy for the AG to increase accuracy, but it was not very difficult for the FG to increase
fluency. The FG wrote the essay focusing not on accuracy but on meaning. Yet they did not
sacrifice accuracy so much. This contrasted with the AG in which some of the students were
very serious about accuracy, sacrificing fluency, with the lowest score in fluency and not the
best in accuracy among the three groups. The results indicate that, in writing essays,
directions from teachers have more influence on fluency than on accuracy, or simply put, they
work like quick-acting medicine. Hence, we could argue that improving fluency, in essay
125
writing, is easier than improving accuracy, at least in the short term.
We examined the correlation of accuracy with fluency in writing for each group with
Pearson’s correlation coefficients. The results showed that although there was not a high
degree of correlation, there was a positive correlation for each group, with a significant
positive correlation in the NDG. The results of weak or little correlation imply that some
students who are fluent in writing may have problems in accuracy, and those who can write
with accuracy may not be very fluent. However, from the fact that each group showed a
positive correlation between accuracy and fluency, we cannot claim that improving students’
accuracy would inhibit fluency and that fluency would hinder accuracy. The result that the
NDG showed the highest correlation between the three groups (r＝.385) implies that students
can strike a good balance between accuracy and fluency when they are not asked to be
concerned only with accuracy or fluency.
6.1.7 Conclusion
The results of the study showed that students who were encouraged to be fluent showed a
better performance, while students asked to be accurate did not show more accuracy than the
other two groups. This implies that in essay writing direction or instruction aiming at
improving fluency can be more influential than that aiming at accuracy. By combining this
contention with the fact that English teaching in Japan has been accuracy-focused, often
making light of fluency, we should be more fluency-oriented than we have been. We suggest
that students should be provided with more opportunities for communication, primarily
focusing not on form but on meaning as VanPatten (1993) mentions that learners must have
some opportunity to develop fluency and to increase accuracy. Japanese high school learners,
who currently learn in an accuracy-focused environment, are likely to be too afraid of making
mistakes hindering fluency or communication. We suggest that teachers should sometimes be
126
more generous toward their errors and mistakes in improving fluency. This does not mean we
should make light of accuracy. The point is that we have to deal with both fluency and
accuracy and continue working on each, sometimes emphasizing one, the other, or ideally
both according to the purpose of the class, as both are closely related and necessary for
successful communication.
As for the relation between accuracy and fluency, these two language skills do not
compete with each other regardless of the directions given. From the results we could argue
that it is crucial and plausible to improve both aspects in students’ production. Traditionally,
or still now, we have focused much more on accuracy than fluency in Japan (e.g., Yoshida,
2002). However, fluency as well as accuracy is indispensable for real communication. It is not
accuracy or fluency, but accuracy and fluency which are crucial in production. As we found in
this study that there was positive correlation between the two, we could argue that fluency
does not hinder but may encourage accuracy, and that accuracy does not hinder but may
encourage fluency. Accuracy and fluency are not contradictory at all but rather two
compatible elements toward the enhancement of English proficiency.
Before concluding this study, the limitations of the study must be noted. The first
limitation is the length and the frequency of the training sessions. Students went through three
training sessions, in total of 45 minutes, before the experiment. However, one could argue that
the training they were exposed to was not sufficient to have an effect on the experiment. More
sessions with much more time may be needed. The second and the main limitation of the
study is its sample size. Ideally we should have more subjects from different schools with
different English proficiency levels. To confirm the findings of the study, a further study with
more samples is needed.
6.2 Study 8: The Effects of Written Feedback in the Form of Recasts
127
Study 7 implied that accuracy and fluency in Japanese high school students’ writing may
not compete with each other. In Study 8 (study based on Sato, 2012b), the effects of written
recasts on learners’ revision of the first draft are examined from some aspects, including the
relation between accuracy and fluency.
6.2.1 Purpose of the Study
It seems that there is an agreement that learners demonstrate improvement in their writing
in a second draft on the same topic after being given corrective written feedback. (e.g., Ellis et
al., 2008; Ferris, 1999, 2004; Truscott, 1996, 1999). In the current study, which was
conducted with Japanese university students, examines the effectiveness of written feedback
in the form of recasts by measuring: to what extent learners would repair their errors or
mistakes; the development of accuracy, fluency and complexity in writing; and the correlation
between accuracy and fluency. In addition, the assumption that the students’ view of error
correction may influence their success in the writing class (Ferris, 2004) motivated us to
examine students’ attitudes and affective aspects toward written corrective feedback and their
correlation with successful revision. The following seven research questions were
operationalized.
RQ1. Are written recasts noticed, leading Japanese EFL students to repair in the text revision?
RQ2. How effective are written recasts for Japanese EFL students according to error types?
RQ3. How effective are written recasts for Japanese EFL students according to the degree of
differences?
RQ4. How effective are written recasts for Japanese EFL students according to the lengths of
the recasts?
RQ5. Do written recasts contribute to the development of accuracy, fluency and complexity in
128
the text revision?
RQ6. Do correlations of accuracy with fluency in the writing change between the first draft
and the revised draft after learners are provided written recasts?
RQ7. Do attitudes and affective factors toward written feedback influence students’
performance in the text revision?
6.2.2 Method
6.2.2.1 The Research Context
English has long been taught as a knowledge-based subject in Japanese junior and senior
high school. For many learners, passing of knowledge-based exams is the primary objective.
It is said that Japanese learners have dual orientations for learning English: a practical,
realistic goal related to examinations and grades, and a vague idealistic goal related to using
English for international or intercultural communication (Yashima, 2000). It seems that most
junior and senior high school learners have the former type of motivation (related to tests)
more than the latter (related to communication) in the Japanese EFL situation (Yashima,
Zenuk-Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004). The data were collected in an English class titled “Foreign
Language Communication” in a national university in an urban area in western Japan. The
purpose of the English class is to improve integrated skills of reading, writing, listening and
speaking in English.
6.2.2.2 Participants
The class was composed of 27 second-year students. 12 were male and 15 female who
were between 19 and 21 years old. All of them belonged to the department of teacher training
and school education, and their majors were mathematics, science, or pedagogy. Although
they were not majoring in English, they could be regarded as at least low-intermediate level
129
students as they would have had to pass the entrance examinations of the national university
by attaining relatively high scores on the English portion of the test. The Japanese EFL
teacher who taught the class, and is the researcher of the study, had taught English for more
than 15 years and was in the third year of employment at the university at the time of this
study. Two students who were absent from either the first or second week of the class were
excluded in the study.
6.2.2.3 Procedures
In the first class after summer vacation in 2010, students were assigned to write an essay
on the topic of “My Summer Vacation.” The topic was regarded as valid for the writing
activity as it would not require students to exercise abilities beyond English such as creativity,
imagination or intelligence. This is compatible with the statement that “we should test only
writing ability and nothing else” (Hughes, 2003, p. 90). Students were not given any direction
on whether they should focus on accuracy or fluency. They were given 30 minutes to
complete the essay and were not allowed to use a dictionary. After they submitted the essay,
the rest time of the class time was spent with students engaged in listening, reading and
speaking activities which were not a part of this study.
The teacher-researcher wrote written recasts in the blank space of each essay. On average
5 recasts were given to each of the students with a minimum of 2 (two students) and a
maximum of 9 (one student).
There was no target focus in providing recasts in the study. Though Bitchener (2008)
argues that there should be only one or a few categories for providing feedback to prevent
information overload, it was assumed that this would be impractical in actual classroom
settings: Students, in general, want to improve overall accuracy in writing (Hartshorn et al.,
2010); Focusing on one or a few error categories may lead to students neglecting other areas
130
(Xu, 2009). Written recasts were provided randomly depending mainly on the teacher’s
common sense intuitions and experience so that students could revise the first draft well
enough to improve the overall quality of the writing as is usually done in EFL classroom
settings.
In the second class, one week after the first class, each of the essays was given back to the
students. Students were asked to read through the feedback for the text revision and given 20
minutes to revise the essay. After they completed the second draft, they were asked to
complete an exit questionnaire. This was to examine students’ attitudes and affective factors
toward written corrective feedback and their correlation with repair.
6.2.2.4 Analysis
6.2.2.4. 1 Classification of Written Recasts
In order to examine the effectiveness of recasts according to types, recasts were
categorized as recasts given to learners’: (1) grammatical errors; (2) lexical errors, (3)
unsolicited use of Japanese following Lyster and Ranta (1997). Grammatical errors are errors
in the use or lack of determiners, particles, verb forms, word order; Lexical errors include
inappropriate, imprecise or inaccurate choices of lexical items; unsolicited use of Japanese is
an instance where a student writes Japanese instead of English. In addition, recasts given to
(4) spelling errors and (5) contents were examined. Content recasts were provided to an
expression(s) whose meaning(s) is (are) vague or awkward. The following are examples
according to types. Changes were written in bold and will be explained later.
Example (1) Grammatical recast.
S1: It is beautiful. → (written recast) Oh, it was very beautiful.
131
Example (2) Lexical recast
S2: In the car I saw a dream. → (written recast) You had a dream in the car?
Example (3) Recast to unsolicited use of L1
S3: We ate a lot of Ika (squid in Japanese) in Hakodate.
→ (written recast) Oh, you ate a lot of squids!
Example (4) Recast to spelling error
S4: I talked with a foreingner →(written recast) You had a talk with a foreigner!
Example (5) Content recast
S5: We lost the games. →(written recast) You lost all of the games?
In only one case was a recast given to grammatical and lexical errors, as the following, and it
was excluded in the analysis.
S: It is heavy.→ (written recast) Oh, it was hard.
Recasts were also categorized according to the degree of differences and lengths
following the parameters of a previous study (e.g., Philp, 2003; Sato, 2006, 2009a). To
examine the effects of the degree of difference between the learner’s initial writing and the
written recast, the number of changes was counted and coded following Philp (2003), but for
the study, recasts were divided into two categories according to whether the recast had only a
single change or more than one change. This decision was made referring to Sato (2006,
132
2009) which revealed that recasts with more than one change were less likely to be noticed by
the Japanese learners. Conversion of the subject was not counted as a change and inversion
counted as one change. Exclamation and interjection were not counted. The following
example was counted as one change.
Example (6) Grammatical recast
S6: Kourijima is small island.→ (written recast) Oh, it is a small island.
Examples (1) and (5) were counted as two changes; examples (2) and (3), as one change;
example (4), as four changes.
As for the lengths, written recasts were categorized into long or short ones according to
the number of morphemes, based on Philp (2003) and Sato (2006, 2009): recasts with more
than five morphemes were coded as long. Example (7) was counted as short, while (8) was
counted as long.
Example (7) Short recast (lexical, one change)
S7: I pointed an umbrella. → (written recast) Oh, you opened an umbrella.
Example (8) Long recast (grammatical, four changes)
S8: I don’t know what should I teach to child then.
→ (written recast) OK, you didn’t know what you should teach to children.
Students’ oral response to oral feedback is called uptake. Lyster and Ranta (1997) defined
uptake as “a student utterance that immediately follows the teacher’s feedback and that
constitutes a reaction in some way to the teacher’s intention to draw attention to some aspect
133
of the student’s initial utterance” (p. 48). Uptake can be either repair, which is modified
output that corrects the initial error, or needs repair, which is modified output that does not
correct the initial error (Lyster and Ranta, 1997).
There is an argument that uptake is not important because it can be mere parroting of the
correct form provided by the teacher (Ostovar, 2010). Ellis and Sheen (2006) pointed out that
repair can be an indicator of noticing but noticing can also take place without uptake.
However, it has been argued that modified output plays an important role in the L2 learning
process (e.g., McDonough, 2005; Shehadeh, 2002; Swain, 1985, 1995, 1998). Swain’s (1995)
Output Hypothesis insists on learners’ production of the correct form because: it helps
learners move somewhat beyond learners’ current ability; and it helps teachers make sure that
their correction has been noticed by the student. Some studies also have found that uptake is
one of the crucial indicators of students’ L2 learning (e.g., Loewen, 2004). Drawing on
previous studies that insist on the importance of modified output in L2 learning (e.g., Gass,
2003; Izumi, 2002; McDonough, 2005; Shehadeh, 2002; Swain, 1985, 1995, 1998; Loewen,
2004), students’ correct written repair was measured in the study. When students’ errors,
mistakes or inappropriate expressions to which recasts were given, were corrected in the
revision, it was counted as successful (repair) and rewarded one point. If they failed to make
the revision, it was counted as failed and a point was not given. We computed success rates. In
the situation when students decided not to use original utterances to which recasts were given,
it was excluded in calculating the success rates. The following are examples of a successful
revision, a failed revision and one excluded in calculating the success rates.
Example (9) Successful
S9: I thought it was neccessary. → (written recast) Yes. It was necessary.
(Student’s revision) →I thought it was necessary.
134
Example (10) Failed.
S10: I was belonged to the club. → (written recast) Oh, you belonged to the team.
(Student’s revision)→I was belonged to the team.
Example (11) Excluded
S11: I saw their swimming in the sea.→ (written recast) You saw them swimming in the
sea?
(Student’s revision)→My friends began swim in the sea.
In example 11, the student produced ill-formed output. However, it was not counted as failed
but excluded, because whether he noticed the recast or not is unclear as he did not use the
same structure in the revision.
I conducted classification and categorization of written recasts. A week after the first
classification, I conducted it again. This method of classification follows Alderson et al.
(1995), which explains that multiple rating sessions increases the reliability of the rating.
Where there were discrepancies between the two ratings (4 cases), a second rater was invited
to rate them. After discussion, the disagreement was resolved.
6.2.2.4.2 Writing Accuracy, Fluency and Complexity
Though there seems to be many measures to quantify accuracy, the proportion of the
number of T-units without lexical and grammatical errors in the total number of T-units in the
writing was calculated. This means that the denominator was the number of T-units and the
numerator was the number of T-units which did not include lexical and grammatical errors.
This measure was taken in accordance with previous studies (e.g., Wolfe-Quintero, Inagaki, &
135
Kim, 1998), and it was felt that this would give us reliable results. We decided not to count
errors related to the usage of articles as they present difficulties even for proficient learners. In
measuring fluency, the number of words written in the essay was counted for the current study,
as is rationalized in Wolfe-Quintero et al (1998). Ellis and Barkhuizen (2005) mention that
counting production rate is the measurement to be applied to writing. As for measuring
complexity, though it has been defined many ways, it was decided to measure the mean length
of T-unit by calculating the average number of words per T-unit following previous studies
such as Ortega (2003) and Wolfe-Quintero et al (1998). In the relation of the three aspects, it
was decided to examine whether or not there are trade-offs between accuracy and fluency in
writing referring to Ellis (2003) and Sato (2008).
6.2.2.4.3 Questionnaire Results and Students’ Writing Performance
In the questionnaire, the following five questions were asked (see Appendix D):
Q. (1) Do you think written feedback from the teacher is important?
Q. (2) Did you refer to the written feedback in revising the text?
Q. (3) Do you want to be given written feedback from the teacher?
Q. (4) Did you understand the written feedback given to your essay??
Q. (5) Write freely about written feedback.
They were asked to write a number from 1 (most strongly disagree) to five (most strongly
agree) for questions (1) to (4). In cases when they wrote either 1 or 5, students were asked to
write a reason. Directions were written in Japanese and comments were given in Japanese on
question (5). The numbers chosen by the students were counted as their scores. Correlations
of success rates with scores of Q (1), Q (2), Q (3) and Q (4) each respectively were examined.
136
In addition, the correlation of success rates with scores of Q(1)＋(2) was examined, which
was motivated by the assumption that if learners regard written feedback as important for the
improvement of their writing and then actually make use of them, they would be more likely
to show repair. Students’ free comments about written feedback were qualitatively analyzed.
6.2.3 Results
6.2.3.1 Success Rates of Recasts According to Types.
In total, 125 written recasts were recorded. Grammatical recasts were made 81 times:
Lexical recasts, 17 times; Recasts to unsolicited use of L1, 11 times; Recasts to spelling error,
6 times; Content recasts; 10 times. As for the lengths, long recasts were recorded 81 times and
short recasts were made 44 times. About the degree of differences, single change recasts were
recorded 48 times, and multiple change recasts were recorded 77 times. Table 6.5 summarizes
the number of recasts, repairs, failed revisions, avoided revisions and success rates according
to error types; Table 6.6 shows the results according to the differences; Table 6.7 shows the
results according to the lengths.
Table 6.5: Number of recasts, repairs, failed revisions, avoided revisions and success rates by
error types
Types Frequency Repair Failed Avoided Success rate
Grammatical 81 43 31 7 58%
Lexical 17 10 5 2 60%
L1 use 11 9 1 1 90%
Spelling error 6 4 2 0 67%
Contents 10 4 4 2 50%
Total 125 70 43 12 62%
137
Table 6.6: Number of single change recasts, multiple change recasts, repair, failed revisions,
avoided revisions and success rates
Types Frequency Repair Failed Avoided Success rate
Single change 48 28 16 4 64%
Multiple 77 42 27 8 61%
Total 125 70 43 12 62%
Table 6.7: Number of long and short recasts, repair, failed revisions, avoided revisions and
success rates
Types Frequency Repair Failed Avoided Success rate
Short 44 23 17 4 58%
Long 81 47 26 8 64%
Total 125 70 43 12 62%
To answer the first research question (RQ (1) Are written recasts noticed, leading
Japanese EFL students to repair in the text revision?) we calculated the success rate. 70
written recasts successfully led students to repair and 43 failed. In 12 cases students did not
use the same structures, words or expressions to which the recasts were given, and were
excluded in calculating the success rates. The success rate calculated was 62%. To examine
whether there was a statistical difference between the number of repairs (70) and failed
revisions (43), a chi-square statistic with Yates’ continuity correction was calculated, finding a
significant difference between them. (χ2 = 6.45, df = 1, p ＜ .05).
The second research question asked about the success rates of written recasts according to
their types (RQ (2) How effective are written recasts for Japanese EFL students according to
error types?). Among 125 written recasts in total, grammatical recasts occurred 81 times with
138
a 58% success rate (43 repairs, 31 failed revisions, 7 avoided revisions), lexical recasts
occurred 17 times with a 60% success rate (10 repairs, 5 failed revisions, 2 avoided revisions),
L1 use recasts occurred 11 times with a 90% success rate (9 repairs, 1 failed revision, 1
avoided revision), spelling error recasts occurred 6 times with a 67% success rate (4 repairs, 2
failed revisions, and one avoided revision that was not recorded), and contents recasts
occurred 10 times with a 50% success rate (4 repairs, 4 failed revisions, 2 avoided revisions).
A chi-square statistic with Yates’ continuity correction revealed there was a significant
difference between the number of repair and failed revisions only in L1 use (χ2 = 6.40, df = 1,
p ＜ .05).
The third research question concerned the success rates according to the degree of
difference between the learner’s initial writing and the written recast (RQ (3) How effective
are written recasts for Japanese EFL students according to the degree of differences?). It was
reported that single change recasts occurred 48 times with a 64% success rate (28 repairs, 16
failed revisions, 4 avoided revisions) and that multiple change recasts occurred 77 times with
a 61% success rate(42 repairs, 27 failed revisions, 8 avoided revisions). A chi-square statistic
test with Yates’ continuity correction revealed that there was not a statistically significant
difference in the success rates between single change recasts and multiple change recasts.
The fourth research question asked whether there is a difference in the success rates
according to the lengths of written recasts (RQ (4) How effective are written recasts for
Japanese EFL students according to length?). It was recorded that short recasts with five
morphemes or less occurred 44 times with a 58% success rate (23 repairs, 17 failed revisions,
4 avoided revisions) and that long recasts with more than five morphemes occurred 81 times
with a 64% success rate (47 repairs, 26 failed revisions, 8 avoided revisions). A chi-square
statistic test with Yates’ continuity correction revealed that there was not a statistically
significant difference in the success rates between short recasts and long recasts.
139
6.2.3.2 Accuracy, Fluency and Complexity
The fifth research question concerned the development of accuracy, fluency and
complexity from the first draft to the second draft (RQ (5) Do written recasts contribute to the
development of accuracy, fluency and complexity in the text revision?). Mean scores of
accuracy, fluency and complexity improved, and there were statistically significant
differences between the first draft and the second draft in fluency (t (24)= －6.55, p＜.05)
and complexity (t (24)= －4.53, p＜.05). However, that was not the case in accuracy (t (24)=
－1.1, n.s.). Table 6.8 summarizes the results.
Table 6.8: Mean scores and SDs of accuracy, fluency and complexity in the first and second drafts
Accuracy Fluency Complexity
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
First draft 59.8 13.7 120.3 41.2 8.2 1.2
Second draft 62.8 15.3 139.1 40.1 8.7 1.4
Note. Accuracy score is the proportion (%) of the number of T-units without lexical and grammatical
errors in the total number of T-units in the writing. Fluency score is the number of words written in the
essay. Complexity score is the average number of words per T-unit
Research question 6 concerned trade-offs of accuracy and fluency in writing (RQ (6) Do
corrections of accuracy with fluency in the writing change between the first draft and the
revised draft after being provided written recasts?). To investigate the correlation of accuracy
with fluency in writing, we examined Pearson’s correlation coefficients. As table 6.9 shows,
in the first writing, little correlation was observed, but in the second writing, a weak
correlation was observed.
140
Table 6.9: Pearson’s correlation coefficients of accuracy with fluency
n Pearson’s correlation
First draft 25 .148
Second draft 25 .380*
Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)
6.2.3.3 Questionnaire Results
Research question 7 concerned students’ affective factors and perception of written
feedback, and their influence on writing performances in the second draft (RQ (7) Do
affective factors influence students’ performance in the text revision?). In the questionnaire, a
Likert-scale measurement with a maximum point score of five was conducted in four
questions. To investigate the correlation of each score and to what extent students successfully
revised in the second draft, we examined Pearson’s correlation coefficients. Table 6.10 shows
the results.
Table 6.10: Average scores and correlations with the success rates
Questions Average points SD Correlations
1.Whether they think written feedback is important 4.04 .73 .267
2.Whether they referred to the written feedback 4.14 .83 .354
3.Whether they wanted to be provided with written feedback 3.79 .82 .038
4.Whether they understood the written feedback 4.0 .68 .222
All of the questions obtained relatively high scores. Pearson’s correlation coefficients
demonstrated a low degree of correlations in 1, 2, and 4, but it did not show a correlation in 3.
As further investigation, the scores of 1 and 2 by each student were combined, and then
141
correlation with the success rates was calculated. This was motivated by the assumption that if
learners think written feedback is important for the improvement of the writing and then
actually make use of them, they would be more likely to show repair. As table 6.11 shows,
there was a significant moderate correlation between them (r＝.400).
Table 6.11: Average scores of Q1 and 2 combined and correlations with the success rates
Questions Average points SD Correlations
“Whether they think written feedback is important
combined” (1) combined with “Whether they referred to
the written feedback” (2)
8.20
1.28
.400*
Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed)
6.2.4 Discussion
6.2.4.1 Success Rates of Recasts According to Types
It was found that students were more likely to show repair to written recasts than not. A
62% success rate is higher than those of oral recasts examined previously (e.g., Lyster and
Ranta, 1997). It is assumed that written recasts are more effective than oral recasts in leading
learners to repair their erroneous production. Eight students mentioned in the free comments
that they found they had made mistakes or errors when they read written recasts and revised
their work. Four students wrote in the comments that they found they had not yet learned the
correct grammatical knowledge about the structures and that by reading the recasts they
learned the grammatical rules correctly. From this, we could say that written recasts activated
students’ previously existing learned systems and partially acquired knowledge. In addition, in
some cases, written recasts provided students with opportunities to learn new languages. One
student wrote in his comments that by reading a recast he learned how to write what he had
142
wanted to write but couldn’t. In the situation, the student was able to fill the gap between what
he wanted to write and what he actually wrote after referring to a written recast.
Variation of success rates by the error types means the effectiveness of recasts varies
according to the types. Recasts to L1 use recorded the highest success rate, then recasts to
spelling errors, followed by lexical recasts, grammatical recasts and content recasts ( L1, 90%
＞ S,67%＞ Lex, 60%＞ G,58% ＞ C,50%). This is similar to Sato (2009a) which
compared the effectiveness of oral recasts according to the types. As the reason that L1 recasts
led to the highest success rate, we can point out its salience as is the case in oral recasts (Sato,
2009a). In the first draft when students used the Japanese language, they found interlanguage
deficiency or a lack of knowledge. In reading written feedback it was easy for them to find the
English equivalents of what had been written in Japanese, so that they could use them just by
changing the Japanese to English. The lowest success rate of content recasts can be attributed
to their vagueness. Content recasts were provided to an expression(s) whose meaning(s) was
(were) vague or awkward. However, although content recasts had corrective intent, students
often must have perceived them as confirmation, paraphrasing or just brief comments.
Example (12) Content recasts
S12: I played tennis every day, six days a week.
→ (written recast) Oh, You played tennis very hard, almost every day.
(There was no revision from the student.)
In this case, we can assume that the student perceived the recasts not as corrective feedback
but as a brief comment from the teacher, as is evidenced by his comment that he could not
understand the purpose of some written recasts. Grammatical recasts also recorded a lower
success rate than the total success rate (62%). This result is compatible with previous studies
143
on oral recasts (e.g., Kim & Han, 2007; Sato, 2009a; Trofimovich, Ammar, & Gatbonton,
2007; Williams, 1999). Trofimovich et al. (2007) suggested that students should already have
knowledge of the form so that they can notice their own errors through recasts and to
reformulate them after recasts. This argument could be partially applied to written recasts in
this study. It can be assumed that some students could not show repair because of a lack of
knowledge on the form to benefit from the enhancing effect of recasts, even though they were
not oral but written ones.
The results revealed that effects of written recasts are not affected by the length or the
degree of difference between the learner’s initial writing and the written recast. One
unexpected finding is that long recasts recorded a higher success rate than short recasts. These
findings are incompatible with previous studies (e.g., Philp, 2003; Sato, 2006, 2009a) which
showed shorter and single change oral recasts are better noticed, leading to learners’ repair. As
to the possible reasons for this, it is interpreted that even written long recasts with multiple
changes can let learners repair their previous erroneous production regardless of their
limitation of working memory. Unlike oral feedback, written feedback was not fleeting and
thus enabled students to trace it back by reading (Payne & Whitney, 2002). This nature of
written feedback was beneficial enough for students with shorter working memory or
difficulty in maintaining information in memory to utilize not only short-single change recasts
but long multiple change recasts. A student’s comment that she repeatedly read the written
recasts to repair her errors confirms this interpretation.
6.2.4.2 Accuracy, Fluency and Complexity
From the first draft to the second draft, accuracy, fluency and complexity developed in the
writing. This is consistent with the argument that written corrective feedback is beneficial in
editing in revision (e.g., Ashwell, 2000; Ferris & Roberts, 2001; Truscott, 1996, 1999, 2007).
144
In the second writing, as students did not have to think about the contents again, some of them
wrote additional information in the revision, contributing to the statistically significant
development in fluency that was measured by the total number of words written in the second
draft. This less cognitive load (in that they did not have to think about what to write) also
encouraged them to write more complex sentences, resulting in statistically significant
development in complexity. However, in writing additional information and complex
sentences, errors and mistakes naturally occurred. This can be the reason that the development
of accuracy was not statistically significant.
As for the trade-off effect between accuracy and fluency in writing, the correlation
between the two was little in the first draft, but a significant weak correlation was observed in
the second draft. This means that the extent of trade-offs decreased with the correlation of
accuracy and fluency improving in the second draft. A higher correlation of the two in the
second draft is thought to be due to students’ making revisions while referring to the written
recasts contributing to the development of both accuracy and fluency. That is to say,
better-balanced writing. One student mentioned in the comments that she used written recasts
as the models and also added other expressions in the revision of original erroneous
production. It can be assumed that written recasts provided the opportunity where students
could repair their errors and mistakes, sometimes with additional words and expressions as
the following example shows.
Example (13) Grammatical recast
S13: I enjoyed sing song.
→ (written recast) You enjoyed singing songs.
→ (Student’s revision) I enjoyed singing songs with children this summer.
145
This type of revision resulted in a higher accuracy and fluency score and a higher correlation
of the two.
6.2.4.3 Questionnaire Results
Questionnaire results revealed that written recasts were generally preferably accepted by
the students, supporting previous studies (e.g., Nugrahenny, 2007; Saito, 1994). Looking at
the correlations of the success rates with the results of each question, questions (1) (whether
feedback is important or not), (2) (whether they referred to the feedback), and (4) (whether
they understand the feedback) demonstrated a low correlation with the success rate. However,
question (3) (whether they want written feedback) did not show correlation with the success
rate. The result implies that whether or not learners want to be given feedback does not affect
their performance in revising their writing. The following comment written by a student can
justify the interpretation.
Excerpt 1: Comment by Takuma8
“I do not want to be given feedback, because it’s hard to read and understand. But once it is
given I would read and use it to correct my errors.”9
A significant moderate correlation (r＝.400) between the combined scores of questions (1)
and (2), and its correlation with the success rate imply that if learners consider written
feedback as important in actually using it, they are more likely to successfully repair their
8 All names are pseudonymous.
9 Student’s quotations are translated by the researcher with a deliberate effort to retain the original meaning written in
Japanese.
146
errors and mistakes.
In the free comments, most of the students expressed their willingness to accept and utilize
written feedback for the revision, which is compatible with the questionnaire results.
Excerpt 2: Comment by Sayaka
“I felt happy to know that the teacher read my writing attentively, and thanks to feedback my
essay improved.”
Excerpt 3: Comment by Tomoka
“I really appreciate feedback, without which I could not have rewritten my essay. Thank you
very much for reading my essay carefully and giving me feedback.”
Excerpt 4: Comment by Mitsuhiro
“As I was given a lot of feedback, I knew that my essay was read with great care by the
teacher. I was highly motivated to rewrite better.”
Comments, such as Excerpts 2, 3 and 4, showed students’ appreciation for their essays
being read by the teacher. This implies written feedback would affect not only technical
aspects in revising the essay but affective factors as well.
However, one issue was implied: Written feedback may not be so beneficial to low-level
learners or those who cannot write much. The following is a comment by a student who wrote
only 28 words in the first draft.
Excerpt 5: Comment by Yutaka
147
“I wrote just a small number of words in the first draft. So there were only two comments.
The comments did not seem to be relevant to my writing.”
In the following Excerpt 6, the student used written feedback without understanding the
meaning. In a situation like this, as Truscott (1996, 1999, 2007) argue, learning may not have
happened.
Excerpt 6: Comment by Ikuko
“I didn’t know whether English expressions written by the teacher were what I had wanted to
write in the first draft, but anyway I copied them in the revision.”
Considering that the questionnaire score of question (4) that asked whether they understood
the feedback is the second lowest among the four questions, and the correlation between the
score of question (4) and the success rate was also the second lowest, it is conceivable that
written feedback may not be so beneficial for low-level learners. Other students commented
the following:
Excerpt 7: Comment by Shin
“As I originally don’t like writing an essay in English, it bothered me to write again by
referring to feedback.”
Excerpt 8: Comment by Yuka
“I don’t like writing and reading English very much. When I saw my essay returned with a
lot of feedback and was asked to rewrite by using feedback, I didn’t feel like doing it.”
148
For those who do not like to study English or non-motivated learners, written feedback can
work the other way: It can demotivate students. We have to examine the effect of written
feedback according to learners’ English proficiency and motivation.
6.2.5 Conclusion
This study found that written feedback in the form of recasting is beneficial for learners to
notice their errors or mistakes leading them to repair. The quality of the writing from the
points of accuracy, fluency and complexity would improve in the second draft written with the
help of feedback. The findings reported are suggestive in that as recasts are not intrusive as
explicit correction (e.g., Doughty, 2001) we can utilize the beneficial effects of written recasts
for Japanese learners who often have difficulty writing essays in English.
6.3 Study 9: Examining the Effectiveness of Written Recasts Determined by
Grammatical Difficulty
6.3.1 Purpose of the Study
Previous studies reported that recasts to learners’ grammatical errors were more frequently
provided than to any other error types, but that the success rate in grammatical recast,
measured by learners’ repair (correct reformulation of an error occurring after recasts), was
the lowest (e.g., Kim & Han, 2007; Sato, 2009a; Williams, 1999). This study (Sato, 2011b) is
designed to examine the effectiveness of written recasts to grammatical errors and whether
there is a difference of effects in recasting as written feedback according to grammatical
difficulty with university students’ text revision.
149
6.3.2 Method
6.3.2.1 Participants and Procedure
Participants and procedures are the same as ones in Study 8: Data obtained in Study 8
were used to be analyzed for the purposes of this study.
6.3.2.2 Data Analysis
In categorizing grammatical items as easy or difficult, Categorizations A and B were used
for the analysis, as is done in Study 3 (Chapter 4). Categorization A is:
Early developmental (easy):
1. Definite article (the) 2. Irregular past tense 3. Plural S
Late developmental (difficult):
1. Indefinite article (a, an) 2. Regular past tense 3. Relative clauses
4. Active & passive voice 5. Third person singular S
Categorization B is:
Early developmental (easy):
1. Progressive (-ing) 2. Plural S 3. B coupla 4. Be auxiliary 5. Possessive –s
Late developmental(difficult):
1. Irregular past tense 2. Regular past tense 3. Third person singular S
4. Articles (a/the)
The following are examples of grammatical recasts according to early (easy) or late
(difficult) development.
Example1 Definite article, the (early in A, late in B)
150
S1: I belonged to team.
→ (written recast) Oh, you belonged to the team.
→ (Student’s revision) I belonged to the team. (successful)
Example 2 Irregular past tense (early in A, late in B)
S2: I take many pictures in Hokkaido.
→ (written recast) Oh, you took many beautiful pictures.
→ (Student’s revision) I take many beautiful pictures in Hakodate. (failed)
Example 3 Plural S (early in A and B)
S3: There were many elementary school student in the camp.
→ (written recasts) You had a lot of students.
→ (Student’s revision) I had a lot of student in the camp. (failed)
Example 4 Indefinite article, a, an (late in A and B)
S4: Every morning we ate apple because it is healthy.
→ (written recasts) You ate an apple every morning.
→ (Student’s revision) I ate an apple every morning. (successful)
Example 5 Regular past tense (late in A and B)
S5: In Tokyo, my friend and I watch the movie.
→ (written recasts) Oh, you watched the movie.
→ (Student’s revision) In Tokyo, my friend and I watched the movie. (successful)
151
Example 6 Relative clause (late in A)
S6: We went to Hokkaido where had a lot of delicious foods.
→ (written recasts) Yes. It is a nice place that has delicious foods.
→ (Student’s revision) We went to Hokkaido that had a lot of delicious foods.
(successful)
Example 7 Active and passive voice (late in A)
S7: The tall building constructed 30 years ago.
→ (written recasts) Oh, it was constructed 30 years ago!
→ (Student’s revision) The tall building constructed 30 years ago. (failed)
Example 8 Active and passive voice (late in A)
S8: The dog was had by his family.
→ (written recasts) His family had the dog.
→ (Student’s revision) His family had the dog. (successful)
Example 9 Third person singular S (late in A and B)
S9: My father always ask me to study hard.
→ (written recasts) Oh, he asks you to study harder.
→ (Student’s revision) My father always asks me to study hard. (successful)
Example 10 Progressive (-ing) (early in B)
S10: I slept when she telephoned me.
→ (written recasts) Oh, you were sleeping when she called you.
→ (Student’s revision) I was sleeping when she called me. (successful)
152
Example 11 Be copula (early in B)
S 11: My friend and I was very tired.
→ (written recasts) Oh, you were very tired.
→ (Student’s revision) My friend and I was very tired. (failed)
Example 12 Be auxiliary (early in B)
S12: We must kind to children.
→ (written recasts) Yes. You must be kind to children.
→ (Student’s revision) We must be kind to children. (successful)
Example 13 Possessive -s (early in B)
S13: The bike of Daisuke is nice.
→ (written recasts) Daisuke’s motor bike is nice?
→ (Student’s revision) Daisuke’s motor bike is nice. (successful)
In Examples 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, and 13, students successfully repaired their errors
referring to written recasts. However, in Examples 2, 3, 7, and 11, they failed in revising
errors. The former was regarded as repair (successful) and the latter as needs repair (failed).
Some may argue that this measurement may not be valid: Long (2007) mentions that recasts
do not always have immediate corrective effects and that learners’ repair is unreliable as an
indication of learning since it might be just a “language-like” behavior (p.99). However, as at
least written recasts led students to correct their errors producing grammatical forms, it was
decided to take this measurement in the current study (e.g., Lyster, 1998b; Lyster & Ranta,
1997; Sato, 2006, 2009a).
One rater conducted categorization of written recasts. A week after the first categorization,
153
the same rater conducted it again. This method of classification follows Alderson et al. (1995),
which explains that multiple rating sessions increases the reliability of the rating. Where there
were discrepancies between the two ratings, a second rater was invited to rate them. After
discussion the disagreement was solved.
6.3.3 Results
In total, 125 written recasts were recorded. Grammatical recasts were made 81 times:
lexical recasts, 17 times; recast to unsolicited use of the Japanese language, 11 times; recasts
to spelling error 6 times; recasts to content, 10 times. Among 81 grammatical recasts, 44
recasts belonged to Categorization A, and 22 were categorized as early development or easy
structures and 22 were as late development or difficult structures. Among 81 grammatical
recasts, 56 belonged to Categorization B, and 26 were categorized as early development or
easy structures and 30 were as late development or difficult structures. In measuring the
effectiveness of written recasts determined by grammatical difficulty, proportion of their
repair (success rate) was calculated. In a situation where students did not use or avoided using
the same structure in their revision, it was excluded in the analysis.
Table 6.12 shows the number of recasts, repair, needs repair, avoided move and success
rate for early developmental or easy structures in Categorization A. Table 6.13 shows the
same for late development or difficult structures in the categorization. Table 6.14 shows the
number of recasts, repairs, needs repair, avoided move and success rate for early
developmental or easy structures in Categorization B. Table 6.15 shows the same for late
development or difficult structures in the categorization.
154
Table 6.12: Categorization A (early development or easy structures)
The number of recasts, successful moves and success rates
Type Recast Repair Needs repair Avoided
Definite article (the) 4 2 2
Irregular past tense 10 6 2
Plural S 8 4 3 1
Total 22 12 7 1
Success rate=63%
Table 6.13: Categorization A (late development or difficult structures)
The number of recasts, successful moves and success rates
Type Recast Repair Needs repair Avoided
Indefinite article(a,an) 7 3 2 2
Regular past tense 6 4 1 1
Relative clauses 4 3 1
Active & passive voice 2 1 1
Third person singular S 3 2 1
Total 22 13 6 3
Success rate= 68%
155
Table 6.14: Categorization B (early development or easy structures)
The number of recasts, successful moves and success rates
Type Recast Repair Needs repair Avoided
Progressive(-ing) 2 2
Plural S 8 4 3 1
Be copula 13 7 6
Be auxiliary 1 1
Possessive -s 2 1 1
Total 26 15 10 1
Success rate = 60%
Table 6.15: Categorization B (late development or difficult structures)
The number of recasts, successful moves and success rates
Type Recast Repair Needs repair Avoided
Irregular past tense 10 6 2 2
Regular past tense 6 4 1 1
Third person singular S 3 2 1
Article (a, the) 11 5 4 2
Total 30 17 8 5
Success rate =68%
In Categorization A, success rate of recasts to easy structures (63%) was lower than that of
difficult ones (68%). In Categorization B, which has taken some account of Japanese learners’
developmental progression, success rate was higher in more difficult structures (68%) than in
easy ones (60%).
156
6.3.4 Discussion and Conclusion
It was found that students were more likely to show repair to written recasts than not.
Success rates (the lowest, 60% and the highest, 68%) are higher than those of oral recasts
examined previously (e.g., Lyster & Ranta, 1997). It is assumed that written recasts are more
effective than oral recasts in leading learners to repair their erroneous production. Eleven
students mentioned in the free comments that they found they had made mistakes or errors
when they read written recasts and revised their work. Six students wrote in the comments
that they found they had not yet learned the correct grammatical knowledge about the
structures and that by reading the recasts they learned the grammatical rules correctly. From
this, we could say that written recasts activated students’ previously existing learned systems
and partially acquired knowledge whether it is about knowledge for easy structures or difficult
structures. In addition, in some cases, written recasts provided students with opportunities to
learn structures they had not yet learned. Four students wrote in their comments that by
reading a recast they learned how to write what they had wanted to write but could not. In the
situation, the students were able to fill the gap between what they wanted to write and what
they actually wrote, after referring to the written recasts.
It was revealed that recasts to difficult structures showed higher success rates. This
implies written recasts are effective both to easy and difficult structures. As to the possible
reasons for this, it is interpreted that even written recasts to difficult structures can let learners
repair their previous erroneous production regardless of their limitation of working memory
and current level of grammatical knowledge. Unlike oral feedback, written feedback was not
fleeting and thus enabled students to trace it back by reading (Payne & Whitney, 2002). This
nature of written feedback was beneficial enough for students with shorter working memory
and less grammatical knowledge. A student’s comment that she repeatedly read the written
recasts to repair her errors confirms this interpretation.
157
Findings of this research offer an implication for writing teachers. As the results showed
the effectiveness of written recasts regardless of the degree of difficulties of grammatical
structures, it is assumed that teachers can utilize written feedback in the form of written
recasts in teaching writing. It is true that it takes time and energy to give written feedback, but
it is worthwhile in improving students’ writing skills.
6.4 Summary of Chapter 6
Study 7 demonstrated that accuracy and fluency in writing were not contradictory but
compatible, suggesting students can improve both elements.
Study 8 found that by providing written feedback in the form of recasting, the quality of
the writing from the points of accuracy, fluency and complexity would improve in the second
draft, reducing trade-off-effect between accuracy and fluency. This study, in general, implied
beneficial effects of written recasts for learners to notice their errors or mistakes leading them
to repair.
Study 9 also confirmed beneficial effects of written recasts provided to grammatical errors
irrespective of the degree of difficulty of grammatical features. However, a number of
limitations should be noted for studies 8 and 9. The sample size was small with only 25
students who were in a national university. Ideally we should have more participants from
different schools with different English proficiency levels. In providing written feedback,
there was no control: Written recasts were provided randomly, mainly depending on the
teacher’s intuition so that students could use them to improve the overall quality of the writing
in the second draft. Some grammatical features or structures are more teachable or treatable
than others (Xu, 2009). Depending on which structures are targeted, the success rate of repair
can be different. In Study 9, as for the categorizations of grammatical structures as easy or
difficult for Japanese learners, structures were divided into two groups with the first half of
158
four structures termed as easy and the second half of the four structures termed as difficult.
However, as this categorization might be considered insufficient, we will need to establish
more valid categorizations. Studies on written recasts reported in this chapter implied the
effectiveness of written recasts. However, these studies should be seen as preliminary. To
confirm the findings of the studies, further research which can overcome the given limitations
is needed.
159
Chapter 7
Examining Self-initiated Modified Output Attempt by Japanese High
School Students with low English Proficiency
Previous chapters (chapter 3, 4, 5, and 6) reported studies on recasts. In the next two
chapters, studies on students’ self-initiated self-repair are reported. In chapter 7, the study
(Sato, 2008b) with lower-level high school students is reported. In the study the term,
“self-initiated modified output” was used for self-initiated self-repair.
7.1 Study 10: Examining Self-initiated Modified Output Attempt by Japanese High
School Students with low English Proficiency
7.1.1 Purposes of the Study
In output-based activities without a teacher, students are required to perform
communicative activities with other students and demonstrate “self-initiation,” which refers to
the attempt to produce more accurate and more comprehensible output pushing learners to
reprocess and restructure their inter-language toward modified output (Shehadeh, 2001).
However, some may be skeptical as to whether Japanese high school learners, most of whom
are not high in English proficiency, can self-initiate and self-repair their production in an
output-based communicative activity. To identify the difficulties with self-initiated
self-completed repairs, or self-initiated modified output, it is necessary to examine whether
learners can self-initiate their utterances. This study (Sato, 2008b) focused on an English class
consisting of students with low-level English proficiency as most of our students are not
competent enough for real communication especially when they are required to converse with
160
others open-endedly and without structure.
The main purpose of this study is to inspect verbal reports during communicative
activities to examine whether learners self-initiate their utterances while performing
output-based communicative activities. The research questions posited for this study are:
RQ1. Does self-initiation frequently occur during the communicative activities selected for
the study?
RQ2. If not, what are the factors that hinder self-initiation?
These research questions were motivated by the need to explore the effectiveness of
output-based communicative activities on Japanese high school students. As is pointed out by
Ellis (1997), most English classes are taken up with teaching grammar without
communicative activities, and most teachers do not provide students with much opportunity
for output through actual communication. To improve this situation, it is crucial to examine
the effect of output-based communicative activities. Specifically focusing on self-initiated
modified output, this study examines how effectively students correct their mistakes and
errors or not, and explores possible factors which may constrain the occurrence of
self-initiated modified output. This is a descriptive study focusing on how students
successfully or unsuccessfully self-repair their utterances in three different communicative
activities.
7.1.2 Method
Participants and procedures are the same as Study 1 in Chapter. The data obtained in
Study 1were used to be analyzed for the purpose of this study. However, in this chapter, more
details are described.
161
7.1.2.1 Participants
The participants in this study were 38 second-year students (20 males and 18 females) at a
public high school in Hokkaido who were college bound. Most of them were not highly
motivated to learn English. Students were divided into two groups in such a way that there
was no overall difference in English ability between the groups. This was done by using the
test score in the most recent term test: Group A , n＝18; Group B, n＝20. In performing
communicative activities, students should feel comfortable and relax with their partners to
maximize their performance. Their English teacher, who was also a homeroom teacher and
understood the personality of each student, put the students of each group into pairs with
careful consideration of their character so that every student would feel comfortable with
his/her partner: Group A consisted of 9 pairs and Group B 10. After they finished each activity,
they found another partner and continued with the activities. Group A performed the activities
on the first day of the class and Group B performed on the second day. This measure
(separation of groups) was taken so that two teachers would be able to observe and record
students’ utterances more effectively and in detail.
7.1.2.2 Procedure
Three activities, namely, play-acting, a skeleton dialogue and an interview, which are
typical and traditional activities widely found in many textbooks authorized by the Japanese
government, were developed for this study. In play-acting activities students are usually
required to practice and learn the role by heart to perform the model dialogue. Students in this
study were given the direction that if they had not been able to memorize all the words or had
forgotten what they had memorized during the dialogue, they should use their own words or
expressions which could serve to continue the conversation (see Appendix A). In the
skeleton-dialogue activity, students were required to fill in the blanks of the model dialogue.
162
The students were given time to fill in the blanks by themselves and then they performed the
dialogue. Livingstone (1983) explains, “skeleton dialogues give a very limited choice and can
be used where the situation and function are concrete” (p.53). The following is an example
from three skeleton dialogues he introduced.
A: Excuse me, when’s the next train to ?
B: At .
A: How much is a ticket?
B: .
A: And which platform does it leave from?
B: .
A: Thank you. (p.53)
In this skeleton dialogue, students are simply required to put in information by using a railway
timetable. They only have to deal with simple facts, not abstract or personal concepts.
However, for the current study a traditional skeleton dialogue activity was developed in a way
that would encourage students to give opinions and to express their ideas, and likes and
dislikes thus promoting authentic communication and interaction. In addition, students were
required to continue conversation freely about the topic (see Appendix B). In the interview
activity, students were asked to take the role of an interviewer and to interview somebody.
They were directed to ask other students what they would do if they had a lot of free time.
Both interviewers and interviewees had to use the subjunctive mood. They were also required
to obtain some information from interviewees and then to continue the conversation freely
(see Appendix C). In the skeleton dialogue and the interview, the main focus was on free
conversation. Three activities were from the textbook authorized by the Japanese government
163
and these were then pilot-tested by three high school teachers with more than 15 years’
experience of teaching. By using their feedback some revisions and modifications were made
so that students would have no difficulty with the activities. As students had opportunities for
communication and interaction during the activities, we regarded them as output-based
communicative activities. All of the students performed the activities in pairs at the same time.
For logistic reasons we could not tape-record the dialogues of all the pairs, and only a few
pairs were recorded and monitored by us for this study. Specifically, during the activities three
volunteer students used a microphone to record their utterances and teacher A, with her own
microphone, tape-recorded some pairs’ dialogues. Teacher B observed and transcribed some
dialogues for further analysis. In total, 26 play-acting activities, 29 skeleton dialogues and 27
interviews were recorded. All recordings were transcribed and re-checked by the researchers
(teacher A and teacher B) to ensure their accuracy and in a limited number of cases where
there were still unsolved transcriptions difficulties the original participants were invited to
interpret. In both of the groups, students first performed play-acting (25min.), followed by the
skeleton dialogue (15 min.) and then the interview (15 min).
7.1.3 Results and Discussion
7.1.3.1 Does Self-initiation Frequently Occur During the Communicative Activities
Selected for the Study? (RQ1)
The results did not show much successful self-initiated modified output. The following is
one of few successful examples from a play-acting activity.
1. Student A: Oh, you are very taller… tall, Yasu!
B: Yes. Everybody says so.
A: If I were you, I play… I would play basketball.
164
B: I don’t like it. Takeshi, you are good at English.
A: Thank you. I study English every day.
B: I would try to make American friends if I’m.. if I were you.
A: I see, but our English teacher speaks English very well.
Note. Self-initiated modified output is written in italics.
However, in the following dialogue, student D noticed her mistake and corrected it, but
student C did not notice her own mistake and continued the conversation.
2. Student C: Oh, you are very tall, Yuki!
D: Yes. Everybody says so.
C: If I were you, I play basketball.
D: I don’t like it. Miki, you are good at English.
C: Thank you. I study English every day.
D: I would try to make American friends if I’m… I were you.
C: I see, but our English teacher speaks English very well.
Note. Self-initiated modified output is written in italics. Erroneous utterance is underlined.
Among the tape-recorded dialogues there were conversations without any self-initiated
modified output. In Example 3, both students made mistakes without self-initiated correction.
However, they continued the dialogue and finished it.
3. Student E: Oh, you are very tall, Yosuke!
F: Yes. Everybody say so.
E: If I were you, I play basketball.
165
F: I don’t like it. Shin, you are good at English.
E: Thank you. I’m study English every day.
F: I …….. make American friends if I were you.
E: I see, but our English teacher speaks English very well.
Note. Erroneous utterance was underlined
In approximately half of the recorded dialogues, we found successful attempts at
self-initiated correction in the case of play-acting activities. In the activity, students were
required to memorize words and expressions as accurately as possible, which made it easier
for self-initiations to happen within the same turn. In other words, as students were pushed to
produce the exact words and expressions used in the model dialogue, it was not difficult for
them to notice when they produced incorrect words and expressions and correct them.
However, in open tasks the situation was totally different. In the skeleton dialogue
students were required to fill in the blanks with their own words, and in the interview they
were required to have an interview with somebody. In both of the activities they were asked to
have a free conversation. In the free conversations we rarely found successful attempts at
self-initiated repair. The following are examples:
4. Student G: If you had a lot of money what would you buy in the country?
H: I would (buy a many soccer goods).
G: (Soccer?)
H: (Yes. I play soccer junior high school.)
G: (I play soccer yesterday. I’m soccer club.)
Note. Given written text is written in print and their own utterances are placed within
parentheses.
166
5. Student I: What would you buy if you had a lot of money?
J: I (buy many CD).
I: (What are CD?)
J: (I don’t know. Because many… many, many).
I: …..….
J: (I hear music always).
Note. Given written text is written in print and their own utterances are placed
within parentheses.
In the examples, students did not notice their erroneous utterances nor did they correct them.
In Example 5, despite student I’s implication that he did not understand the previous
expression, student J did not correct or modify the utterance. In the case of open tasks they
had difficulty in noticing mistakes or errors they made because they had not had model
expressions as they had in play-acting. Table 7.1 shows the number of conversations with
successful and unsuccessful self-initiated modified output.
167
Table 7.1: The number of conversations with successful and unsuccessful self-initiation
Activity The number
of pairs
recorded
Conversations with
successful
self-initiated
modified output by
both students
Conversations
with successful
self-initiated
modified output
by one student
Conversations
with unsuccessful
self-initiated
modified output
Play-acting
Skeleton
dialogue
Interview
26
29
27
10
4
3
15
7
5
8
5
7
7.1.3.2 What are the Factors That Hinder Self-initiation? (RQ2)
In the current study, self-initiation did not occur frequently. The main reason for this may
have been students’ low English proficiency. Lyster and Ranta (1997) argue that self-initiated,
self-completed repairs will not happen if learners do not have an adequate level of English
proficiency. A reason for this has been offered by VanPatten (1990, 1996) who claims that for
low-level learners it is enough just to maintain communication. For most of the students in the
study, continuing the conversation could have been their first priority and it is arguable that it
is premature for them to produce self-repairs. It stands to reason that without knowing or
internalizing some grammatical structures or expressions, learners cannot notice their own
mistakes and so cannot correct them.
A second factor that constrained self-initiation may have been the interlocutors’ feigned
comprehension. In self-initiation, NNSs modify their output to produce more comprehensible
output when they realize that their current or previous utterance is insufficient to
communicate their intended meaning (Kasper, 1985). However, in support of Aston’s (1986)
168
remark that “interlocutors sometimes feign comprehension in order to keep the conversation
going, reaffirm satisfactory communication, and maintain a satisfying rapport”(p.139),
students in this study often pretended to have understood the previous utterance. In the
following example, student K’s utterance “Who you buy?” was not understood by student L.
However, she continued the conversation and K also kept the conversation going. The
interview with L after the class revealed that she feigned comprehension to keep the
conversation going.
6. Student K: If you had a lot of money, what would you buy in the country?
L: I would buy many Omiyage.
K: Who you buy?
L: I buy foods and….foods.
K: Please give me.
In example 7, both students must have had difficulties in understanding their partner’s
utterances or could not understand them as they were intended, but they continued the
conversation anyway.
7. Student M: What would you buy if you had a lot of money?
N: I would buy many clothes.
M : Do you go… where depart… or shop?
N: …I like Seibu.
M: Let’s go together.
N: OK.
169
Another possible reason why they feigned comprehension might have been their motivation.
As previously mentioned, the students were not highly motivated in learning English so they
may have been more interested in completing the activities than in genuinely communicating
in English. During my teaching career, I have seen a lot of students who did not want to talk
in English and just wanted to finish the conversations, even if they have not understood the
utterances. In the examples, they must have feigned to have understood the utterances in order
to continue and finish the conversation. We could argue that feigned comprehension, as
introduced in examples 6 and 7, hindered students from producing self-initiation attempts.
The situation in the current study where only novice learners conducted the dialogue may
have constrained the frequency of self-initiation. In the following example, students produced
self-initiated modified output only to end up making erroneous incorrect utterances.
8. Student O: What would you buy if you had …have a lot of money?
P: I would…..I will buy a camera.
O: Oh, good idea. Do you have a camera?
P: No, I don’t. Do you have a … you have it?
O: Yes, I do…no, no, I have.
Regarding the results across the three activities, Table 7.1 shows that play-acting led to
more successful self-initiated modified output than the skeleton dialogue or the interview did.
In the play-acting, which was a closed task, students made an effort to memorize lines, and in
the dialogue they persisted in using the models. On the other hand, in the skeleton dialogue
and the interview, they could continue talking freely without having to refer to models, which
may have made it difficult for them to self-repair their errors and mistakes. Table 1 shows the
number of students’ unsuccessful self-initiated utterances. In play-acting, students produced
170
more unsuccessful self-initiated modified output than in the skeleton dialogue and the
interview. It could be argued that since students were given accurate models on which to base
their interactions in play-acting, which was not the case with the other two activities, they
were more likely to notice their errors and mistakes in this activity than in the skeleton
dialogue or the interview, and therefore they tried to self-repair their incorrect utterances,
sometimes unsuccessfully.
Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) claimed that tutors should continuously assess learners’
needs in order to provide appropriate help, and went on to make the claim that, “this process
can be accomplished only through the collaborative interaction of the expert and the
novice”(1994, p.468). Students left on their own to solve their immediate production
problems or difficulties were required to engage in various thought processes that consolidate
existing knowledge or possibly generate new knowledge on the basis of their current
knowledge (Kormos, 2000). This must have been too difficult for the students in this study,
with very limited linguistic knowledge of English, which sometimes made them produce
erroneous utterances through insufficient self-initiated repairs.
7.1.4 Pedagogical Implications
Qualitative analyses offer some pedagogical implications. It is unlikely that low-level
students, such as those in the study, would notice their own mistakes or errors and their failed
attempts to convey messages. Thus it is arguable that low-level students are unable to engage
in self-initiated correction and modification. Allowing such students to converse freely may
not necessarily lead to acquisition. One could argue that communicative activities should only
be used if teachers can intervene frequently (e.g., in situations where class sizes are smaller or
there are more teachers in the classroom so that students and teachers can have more
interaction). However, we should be careful in emphatically excluding the use of
171
communicative activities in the form of pair work or group work even in a large size class.
Rather, we should justify the use of those activities in enhancing students’ communicative
abilities for the requirement of being “Japanese with English Abilities”, because it is
self-evident that students can use English for real communication during the activities. In the
study, students were using English, even with some errors and mistakes, for real
communication. It remains valuable to provide students with many opportunities for output
through real communication even with mistakes and errors. We should take into consideration
a number of previous studies which documented the significant advantages of communicative
activities and then utilize them. With a little thought we could make pair work and group
work more effective. One possible measure which could be used to cope with the issue of
large class sizes is “peer-supervision” or “peer-intervention.” While students are engaged in
an interaction with their partners it is not easy to attend both to meaning and form at the same
time, making it difficult for them to notice their errors and mistakes. As VanPatten (1990) has
suggested, because of their cognitive constraints, learners have difficulty in achieving a high
level of linguistic accuracy just through communicative activities.
Proficient students, who are appointed by the teacher as peer-supervisors, could, while
observing other students’ dialogues, implicitly or explicitly let speakers notice erroneous
utterances they have made so as to lead them to self-repair. This would be beneficial for
student-supervisors as well since they would have to attend to interactions with full
concentration, exercising their metalinguistic knowledge of English. It would, of course, be
crucial for peer-supervisors to be briefed by the teacher that they should observe in an
unobtrusive manner otherwise performers might be discouraged from speaking. Some may
claim that this would be impractical considering students’ limited metalinguistic knowledge,
but we argue that the approach could be facilitated by teachers giving prior instruction on
linguistic points to peer-supervisors. Peer-supervisors are not necessarily highly proficient
172
students. Students could be given the role in rotation, which would make the activities much
more student-centered, motivating them to participate in output-based communicative
activities with more enthusiasm.
Another suggestion to make the activities more effective is that teachers should, after the
first activity, give students negative feedback, grammar points, key expressions and words so
that they can self-initiate their re-production more easily, and then students should be asked to
perform again. To provide students with explicit instruction including controlled production
drills that focus on accuracy can be beneficial for successful self-initiation to occur when
students perform communicative activities again. Additionally, after the activity, teachers
could ask students to write sentences they wanted to produce, but actually could not, by using
dictionaries or grammar books. In some cases a teacher may have to explain grammatical
rules students have not yet fully understood. In the post-activity of completing their target
expressions or sentences, students can learn new words, expressions and even grammatical
rules. As for which types of activities should be employed for self-initiation to occur, this
study revealed that closed tasks are more likely to be beneficial for the purpose. However, as
Sato’s experimental study (2005) revealed, a closed task has a more facilitating role in
acquiring a target grammatical structure than open tasks and that open tasks are more
beneficial to encourage learners to be more communicative. We should decide which type of
task should be used according to the purpose of the classes.
There are two limitations to our analysis and discussion. The first limitation is the fact that
not all utterances in the activities were recorded for further analysis. Ideally we should have
tape-recorded all interactions. The second limitation concerns the English proficiency of the
students. Most of the students in this study were not proficient. More proficient students may
have shown different results and provided a more secure basis for inference on the basis of
proficiency. It is suggested that research be conducted to compare self-initiated modified
173
output across different proficiency levels.
7.2 Summary of Chapter 7
In this chapter, the study examined whether self-initiation would occur effectively in three
communicative activities involving only students. The results of this descriptive study
revealed that successful self-initiated modified output did not occur frequently as previous
studies had shown (e.g., Schegloff et al, 1977: Schegoloff, 1979: Shehadeh, 2001). This
doesn’t mean, however, that output-based communicative activities are not effective for
language acquisition. In the activities, students showed signs of struggling to make meaning,
which, we argue, is itself a learning endeavor and most important for learning. The students,
who were still at the beginner stage, were actually communicating by making use of their
limited knowledge of English, though not always with correct form. It may be true that
low-level students are not able to self-repair as they have not yet acquired enough skill to do
so, but they did make a significant effort to exchange information and ideas through
communication. The act of producing language consists part of the process of language
learning, even taking into consideration some mistakes and errors. Making mistakes and
errors itself is an important process for language acquisition. As Brown (1994) mentions, we
should “regard learners’ errors as important windows to their underlying system…” (p. 27)
and “errors are a necessary manifestation of interlanguage development…” (p. 177). We
remain convinced that many more opportunities for communication in English should be
provided even to low-level learners to improve their English learning despite the cautionary
implications of limited self-initiated repair in the case of students with low proficiency that
was the central finding of this study reported in Chapter 7.
174
Chapter 8
Examining Self-initiated Self-repair Attempts by Japanese High School
Learners with Intermediate English Proficiency While Speaking English
In the last chapter, the study with low English level students revealed that successful
self-initiated self-repair did not occur frequently. In this chapter, two studies, Study 11 (Sato,
2012a) and Study 12 (Sato & Takatsuka, 2012), which investigated self-initiated self-repair
attempts and their effects on Japanese high school learners with intermediate English
proficiency, are reported.
8.1 Study 11: Self-initiated Self-repair Attempts by Japanese High School Learners
While Speaking English
8.1.1 Purposes of the Study
In the last chapter, Study 10 (Sato, 2008) examined self-initiated self-repair on low-level
Japanese learners of English without high motivation toward learning English. It was revealed
that while the students were performing communicative tasks with a partner (another student),
self-initiated self-repair frequently did not occur successfully. As previous research indicates
that self-initiated self-repair can be utilized more effectively by high and intermediate learners
than by low-level learners, it is necessary to investigate the act of self-repair not only by
low-level Japanese learners but also by intermediate Japanese ones.
The present study (Sato, 2012a) examined self-initiated self-repair by low-intermediate
high school learners, most of whom are college bound. Learners are engaged in an interaction
not with another student with a native speaker of English. Well-formed repair after
175
self-initiation was counted as successful. Types of triggers were classified as: errors; different
information; appropriacy. Errors were subcategorized into four groups: grammatical; lexical;
phonological; the first language use. These definitions will be explained in more detail later.
The following research questions (RQs) were formulated.
RQ1. Is the success rate of self-initiated self-repair high?
RQ2. Is there any difference in the occurrence of self-initiated self-repair according to the
types of triggers?
RQ3. Is there any difference in the success rate according to the types of triggers?
RQ4. Is there any difference in the occurrence and success rate among the different types of
error repair?
8.1.2 Method
8.1.2.1 Participants and Procedure
Participants and procedures are the same as ones in Studies 2, 3, and 4: Data obtained in
the studies were used for the purposes of this study.
8.1.2.2 Data Collection and Analysis
In the present study, self-repair attempts issuing from self-initiation after a trigger is
termed as self-initiated self-repair. The following is an example of a self-initiated self- repair
from the present study.
Example 1
David: When did you start playing the piano?
Student 1: My twelve, in twelfth grade.
176
Student 1 detected her error (trigger) and successfully repaired it by herself.
As for classification of self-repairs, mainly referring to Levelt (1983) and Kormos (2000),
self-initiated self-repairs were classified into three groups for the present study: different
information, appropriacy, and error. A different information repair is defined as speakers’
encoding of different information from a previous formulation. An appropriacy repair is
defined as speakers’ encoding of information that needed to be “more precise, more coherent,
pragmatically more appropriate, or less ambiguous” (Kormos, 2000, p. 150). An error repair
refers to the act of speakers’ attempts to repair their previous erroneous utterances. As the
fourth type of repair, a rephrasing repair was given in Kormos (2000), and defined as a
repetition of a slightly modified version of a previous utterance resulting from uncertainty
about its correctness. However, it was assumed that it would be difficult to draw a clear line
between a rephrasing repair and an error repair (or appropriacy repair), without a retrospective
interview with speakers for confirmation. Thus, it was decided not to include the category of a
rephrasing repair in the present study. The following are examples of a different information
repair and an appropriacy repair from the study.
Example 2 Different information repair
S2: I, my family had a dog. (Successful)
Example 3 Appropriacy repair
D: Are you in any clubs?
S3: Yes. I belong to the club, the soccer club and… (Successful)
Student 2 uttered “I” but decided to encode different information by repairing it to “my
family”. In Example 3, student 3 decided to make his previous utterance more precise and
177
pragmatically more appropriate and it was successfully conveyed.
Error repairs were subcategorized into four groups according to the type of triggers:
grammatical, lexical, phonological, and the first language, Japanese, (L1) use. This grouping
was based on Lyster and Ranta (1997): (1) Grammatical errors are errors in the use or lack of
determiners, particles, verb forms, word order; (2) Lexical errors include inappropriate,
imprecise or inaccurate choices of lexical items; (3) Phonological errors address inappropriate,
imprecise or inaccurate pronunciation; (4) Unsolicited use of Japanese is an instance where a
student speaks Japanese instead of English. The following are some examples.
Example 4 Grammatical
D: What junior high school did you go to?
S4: I was gone to, I went to Matoba Junior high school. (Successful )
Example 5 Grammatical
D: Why do you want to be a nurse?
S5: I’m take, I like take care of people. (Failed)
Example 6 Lexical
S6: Last night I see, I saw a dream. (Failed)
D: Oh, you had a dream last night.
Example 7 Phonological
D: What was the last thing that you bought?
S7: Hmm… I bought a bak, bag. (Successful)
178
Example 8 L1 use
D: After school when you are at home, what do you do?
S8: I neru (sleep in Japanese), sleep at home. (Successful)
In Example 4, the student successfully self-repaired the grammatical error, while student 5
failed to repair her error in expressing her desire or will. In repairing her error, student 6 made
a wrong word choice. In Example 7, mispronunciation of bag resulting from Japanese
pronunciation was successfully repaired. On many occasions, students first used L1 and then
changed it into English. In the activity, they were required to speak only in English, and as it is
crucial for them to communicate without using Japanese, L1 use was coded as an error in the
study.
Classification and sub-categorization of self-initiated repairs was conducted by the
researcher. A week after the first classification, it was conducted again by the same researcher.
This method of classification follows Alderson, Clapham and Wall (1995), who wrote that
multiple rating sessions increase the reliability of the rating. Where there were discrepancies
between the two ratings (3 cases), a second rater, a high school English teacher with more than
15 years of teaching experience, was invited to rate them after discussion, disagreement was
resolved.
8.1.3 Results
8.1.3.1 Is the Success Rate of Self-initiated Self-repair High? (RQ1)
The first research question asked about the success rate. Eighty-six self-initiated self-repair
attempts were conducted successfully and 25 failed. To examine whether there was a
statistical difference between the number of successful self-initiated self-repairs (86) and
failed ones (25), a chi-square statistic was calculated, finding a statistically significant
179
difference between them (χ2 = 33.52, df = 1, p = .00).
Table 8.1: Success rate of self-initiated self repair attempt
Total Success Failed Success rate
Self-repair attempt 111 86 25 77%
8.1.3.2 Is There any Difference in the Occurrence of Self-initiated Self-repair According
to the Types of Triggers? (RQ2)
The second research question asked about the occurrence of self-initiated self-repair
according to the types of triggers. In total, 111 self-initiated self-repairs were reported. Among
them, error repairs occurred 86 times (78%); different information repairs occurred 9 times
(8%); and appropriacy repairs occurred 16 times (14%). A chi-square statistic test revealed
there was a statistically significant difference in the occurrence by the types (χ2 = 98.0, df = 2,
p ＜ .05). It also revealed that the difference in the occurrence of error repairs (86) and that
of different information repairs plus appropriacy repairs (16＋9) was statistically significant
(χ2 = 98.0, df = 1, p = .00). There was no statistically significant difference between different
information repairs and appropriacy repairs.
180
Table 8.2: The occurrence of self-initiated self-repair according to the types of triggers
Types Frequency Proportion
Error repair 86 78%
Appropriacy repair 16 14%
Different information repair 9 8%
Total 111 100%
8.1.3.3 Is There any Difference in the Success Rate According to the Types of Triggers?
(RQ3)
The third research question concerned the success rates according to the types of triggers.
It was reported that error repairs had a 77% success rate, different information repairs had
89% and appropriacy repairs was 75% successful. A chi-square statistic test with Yates’
continuity correction revealed that there was not a statistically significant difference in the
success rates according to the types.
Table 8.3: The success rates according to the types of triggers
Type Frequency Success Failed Success rate
Error Repair 86 66 20 77%
Appropriacy repair 16 12 4 75%
Different Information repair 9 8 1 89%
Total 111 86 25 77%
181
8.1.3.4 Is There any Difference in the Occurrence and Success Rate Among the Different
Types of Error Repair? (RQ4)
The fourth research question concerned the occurrence and success rate of error repair
according to the types. The category of error repair was further sub-classified. The success
rate of each was: L1 use repairs had an 83% success rate, grammatical repairs 79%,
phonological repairs with 75%, and lexical repairs had a 50%, success rate. To examine
whether there was a statistically significant difference in the success rates by the four types, a
chi-square statistic test with Yates’ continuity correction was conducted and we found that
there was no difference.
Table 8.4: The occurrence and success rate of error repair according to the types
Type Frequency Success Failed Success rate
L1 use 36 30 6 83%
Grammatical 34 26 8 79%
Phonological 8 6 2 75%
Lexical 8 4 4 50%
Total 86 66 20 77%
Table 8.5 summarizes the results (RQ2, 3 and 4).
182
Table 8.5: The occurrence and success rates
Frequency Success
Types Total Success Failed rate
Phonological 8 6 2 75%
Error repair Lexical 8 4 4 50%
Grammatical 34 26 8 79%
L1 use 36 30 6 83%
86(78%) 66 20 77%
Different Information repair 9(8%) 8 1 89%
Appropriacy repair 16(14%) 12 4 75%
Total 111 86 25 77%
8.1.4 Discussion
8.1.4.1 Success Rate of Self-initiated Self-repair
Results of this study implied that learners are more likely to be successful in self-initiated
self-repairs than to fail at them: a greater number of well-formed L2 self-repairs were
recorded as compared to ill-formed ones. This result is compatible with earlier study findings
(Kasper, 1985 ; Schegloff et al., 1977 ; Shehadeh, 2001; Van Hest, 1996). At the moment of
detecting errors and mistakes, or triggers, in their original utterances, students noticed a gap
between utterances and the target language. This led them to produce a modified output
(Swain & Lapkin, 1995). It was recorded that David provided students with adequate time for
them to produce an output. This presented them with sufficient time to attend to form while
planning speech acts, and the opportunity to self-repair their erroneous original utterances.
This situation created favorable conditions for self-initiated self-repair as defined in previous
studies (Shehadeh, 2001; Yuan & Ellis, 2003). It can be argued that in some cases learners
183
found that they had made a mistake in the sense that Ellis (1997) uses that word: an accidental
slip of the tongue resulting from tiredness or some kind of pressure to communicate (Ellis,
1997).
Example 9
D: What did you do after school yesterday?
S9: I go, went to a convenience and buy, bought? bought a magazine.
Example 10
D: Why do you want to be a teacher?
S10: Because, because I like child, children very much.
In these examples, students made a mistake and corrected it immediately after detecting
its deviance from the correct form. It is interpreted that it was not so difficult for students to
correct mistakes by using explicit knowledge, which is knowledge about language with
awareness and learners can verbalize it.
8.1.4.2 Occurrence of Self-initiated Self-repair According to the Types of Triggers
The occurrences of self-initiated self-repairs according to the types of triggers were
reported as: Error 86 times (78%)＞Appropriacy 16 times (14%)＞Different information 9
times (8%). The majority of students’ repair was on errors. The results were incompatible with
Van Hest (1996), which reported appropriacy repairs accounted for 39.7%, followed by error
repairs (22.4%) and different information repairs (10.1%). In the study of NS/NS discourse
(Schegloff et al., 1977) and NS/ advanced NNS discourse (Kasper, 1985), it has been reported
that the vast majority of repairs consisted of content or pragmatic repairs rather than linguistic
184
ones. The results of the present study did not support these findings either.
Kormos (2006), after evaluating previous studies, concluded that as L2 proficiency
increases, the nature of repair changes from simple error repairs to more complex discourse
level repairs. As a rationale for this argument, Kormos (2006) explained that compared to
less-proficient learners advanced learners acquire greater declarative knowledge, which is
factual knowledge that is expressed explicitly. Those advanced learners are able to automatize
that knowledge to a greater extent, leading them to attend to their own utterances at the level
of discourse and content. This may be because students in the present study did not have
enough attention available for monitoring at the level of discourse or content.
Levelt (1983) supposed that the act of self-repair would be intended to prevent potential
communication breakdown. However, in this study, even when communication breakdown
did not seem to occur, students frequently self-initiated to repair their errors.
Example 11
S11: Last night I watch, watched the movie on TV.
In this example, student 11 did not have to repair “watch” just to avoid a communication
breakdown as “last night” had made the context clear. The followings are examples in which
students self-repaired their errors even when communication breakdown did not seem to occur.
Example 12
S12: I read many book, books this summer.
Example 13
S13: My father drink, drinks beer every night.
185
Example 14
S14: When I was a junior high school student, I play, played soccer after school.
Errors of the third person S, the plural S and regular past tense in a sentence with an
adverbial phrase or clause would not usually cause communication breakdowns. However,
students self-repaired errors of the third person-S 3 times, the plural S, 4 times and errors of
regular past tense 6 times. Kormos (2006) goes on to state that the demand of accuracy in the
situation influences speakers’ decisions on the implementation of the repair. She mentions that
formally instructed foreign language speakers who are taught explicit grammar pay more
attention to the linguistic form than the information or content.
As this was an interview test in which their English proficiency would be measured, it is
likely that students put priority on linguistic form or accuracy. In the formally instructed,
accuracy-oriented Japanese EFL environment which is language-centered rather than
content-centered, students in general would assume that using accurate English has primacy,
leading them to repair errors frequently.
To account for the relatively low frequency of different information repairs, we can point
out our observation that students tended not to initiate repair even when the wrong message
would be conveyed.
Example 15
S15: I didn’t study English at all in junior high school.
D: Oh, your junior high school didn’t have English class.
186
Example16
S16: We Japanese usually eat sushi, tempura, and sukiyaki…
D: Oh, you are very rich.
In these examples, students sent simplified potentially innacurate messages. Neustupny
(1982) reported that in speaking English to native speakers, Japanese people tended to convey
simplified exaggerated messages. They avoided using more difficult complicated language
structures and did not revise their utterances due to their perceived insufficient English
proficiency, even though they knew their messages were not correct. In some cases, students
in the current study also must have realized the need for repair to convey what they really
meant during or just after the production, but did not repair incorrect messages. This may be
because students chose to leave incorrect messages untouched due to the difficulty of revising
them to be correct in English, as reported earlier (Neustupny, 1982).
8.1.4.3 Success Rate According to the Types of Triggers
As for the success rates according to the types of triggers, different information repairs
was the highest (89%) followed by error repairs (77%) and appropriacy repairs (75%).
Success rates were relatively high and there was no statistically significant difference
according to types.
In the different information repair, students decided to use information different from the
original source; information in which they did not have to experience linguistic problems. In
situations where linguistic problems were found to be beyond their English proficiency, it
may be assumed that they did not even attempt to repair them. In the following example,
student 17 easily succeeded in providing different information.
187
Example 17
D: Tell me about your father.
S17: My father plays, likes watching golf on TV.
This interpretation can be applied to appropriacy repair.
Example 18
D: Why do you want to go to Korea?
S18: I want to study, learn Korean.
It is interpreted that the student tried successfully to repair the previous word “study” to make
it more precise and pragmatically appropriate as this act was not beyond her English
proficiency. High success rate of error repair resulted from high success rates of L1,
grammatical and phonological repair. This will be discussed in the next section. Only in one
case out of nine was a failed different information repair was reported.
Example 19
D: Why do you study English hard?
S19: It is important for me, we, because English is international…
In the example, it can be assumed from the context that the student wanted to say learning
English is important. In changing the meaning of “me” (English is important for her) to “us”
(for other people, too), the student attempted to add information that English is an
international language. This dual task possibly made the repair cognitively demanding, and
led to an error. In the eight other cases, students successfully changed the information.
188
8.1.4.4 Occurrence and Success Rate of Error Repairs According to the Types
In the category of error repairs, 36 of 86 instances were L1 use (42%), 34 were
grammatical (40%), and only 8 instances each (9%) were phonological and lexical. Success
rates of each were: L1, 83%: grammatical, 79%; phonological, 75%; lexical, 50%. It was
frequently recorded that students, at first, used Japanese, and then restated it into English.
Example 20
D: Are you fast in the half marathon?
S20: Amari hayakunai, I’m not so fast.
Example 21
D: Do you like to play the piano?
S21: Hai, Yes.
Example 22
D: What are your good points?
S22: Akaruikana~, cheerful.
As these instances show, students answered in Japanese followed by the English counterpart.
In most of the cases, correct English was produced immediately after the use of the L1
(Japanese). From this observation, it is thought that even though students did not have
linguistic problems, they still chose to use Japanese first and then restate the utterance in
English. This category having the highest success rate (83%) suggests this interpretation is
correct. The mechanism of this common behavior observed in the study should be further
189
examined.
As a reason for the high frequency rate of grammatical repairs, McDonough (2005) stated
that as EFL students are learning the target language in formal educational settings with
explicit grammar teaching, they find grammatical error particularly noticeable. In this study,
by using their explicit knowledge, students monitored their utterances and self-repaired them
when triggers were detected. In this situation, learners were able to repair an utterance only
when they had explicit knowledge of the grammar rule of the trigger. If not, they were less
likely to try to correct their own grammatical errors. This could have contributed to the
relatively high success rate of grammatical repair (79%). One common phenomenon, which
possibly contributed to the high frequency of use as well as the high success rate, is the
students' use of the be-copula before the correct use of verbs.
Example 23
D: Do you belong to a club?
S23: Yes. I am, I belong to the cooking club.
Example 24
D: What did he do that was clever?
S24: He was, listened to ten people.
This phenomenon is interpreted as a transfer from their L1. In the Japanese language, wa
assumes some of the functions of the be-copula and is used before verbs as well. Due to such
transfer, students often put be-copula first and then immediately after the detection of the
error they repaired to the appropriate verb. This phenomenon was reported often, with nine
occurrences in the study.
190
The reported frequency rates of phonological and lexical repairs were both low (9%). It is
generally accepted that Japanese learners often cannot pronounce English correctly especially
when they pronounce certain phonemes which do not exist in the Japanese language
(MacKain, Best & Strange, 1981). Additionally, students are not well trained to listen to or
pronounce subtle variations in phonemes. Nakamori (2009) pointed out that once Japanese
learners of English acquire the manner of perceiving and expressing English sounds based on
Japanese sounds (phonemes, syllables, intonations) it is extremely difficult to overcome the
problem. In this study, students possibly could not detect their mispronunciations and if so,
they could not try to correct them, leading to a low frequency rate.
As for the low frequency (9%) and success rates (50%) of lexical repairs10, it was perhaps
difficult for students to attend both to grammaticality and appropriacy of word choice.
Example 25 Lexical
S25: This morning I drink, drank medicine. (Failed)
D: Oh, you took medicine.
In the example, the student succeeded only in grammatical correctness but not in an
appropriate choice of a lexical item. The sentence is grammatically correct, but as it is
lexically incorrect it was counted as failed. Widdowson (1989) found that when learners are
learning grammar through a rule-based approach, they often produce output that is
grammatically correct but linguistically incorrect. As EFL Japanese students are learning
10 There was no statistically significant difference in the success rates according to error types. An adjusted residual of
lexical errors computed through the residual analysis revealed ±1.9, which was not a statistically significant difference
(±1.96), but this can be attributed to the low frequency of lexical repairs.
191
English in formal educational settings with explicit grammar teaching which emphasizes
accuracy or rules, it is felt that they were not instructed with attention to appropriate word
choice but instead to grammatical correctness.
8.1.5 Conclusion
This study has shown the relatively high success rate of self-initiated self-repair (77%): It
has also shown that the occurrence and success rates of self-initiated self-repair vary
according to the types of triggers. Analyses of the findings and observation offer several
pedagogical implications.
Teachers can be encouraged to give learners an explicit direction that they should try to
repair their utterances when they detect their own errors or mistakes. It was thought, from the
observation, that learners would not often repair their messages, even when the message was
not what they meant to say. Teachers may have to encourage learners to repair their wrong
message, as the move to produce a correct message would develop students’ interlanguage.
As it was observed that learners are less likely to self-initiate to self-repair their
phonological and lexical errors, teachers, while interacting with a learner, should give
students some feedback. By giving them prompts such as a clarification request and repetition
of the error, teachers can push learners to modify their non-target output. They can also
provide learners with models through recasts, confirmation checks or explicit correction,
when learners cannot detect their non-target output.
A shared common behavior of L1 use followed by a restatement in English should be
considered as a negative move by the learner. Unnecessary L1 use hinders target language
development, causing possible communication breakdown with non-Japanese speakers. In
this study, the results implied that students attend to linguistic errors more than to discourse or
content level in monitoring. Keeping this tendency in mind, teachers can encourage students
192
to monitor their utterances, attending to not only the linguistic aspect but also to discourse- or
content-related aspects of speech.
This small-scale study examined self-initiated self-repair attempts, and reported their
effect on Japanese learners. However, the results should be considered cautiously, as there are
some limitations to its findings. In this study, interviews as stimulated recall measurements
were not conducted. To confirm the interpretations of the observed phenomena, retrospective
interviews should have systematically been done with all of the students and the interlocutor,
David. In the activity, even though David and the students had spontaneous interactions, the
setting was an interview test. The results could have been different, if it had not been an
interview test. Since the findings are within the context of the learners and the NS
investigated in this study, conclusions should be taken as tentative without generalizing the
results to other contexts.
8.2 Study 12: The Occurrence and the Success Rate of Self-initiated Self-repair
Depending on the Grammatical Difficulty of Triggers.
8.2.1 Purpose of the Study
Previous studies examined the occurrences and success rates of self-initiated self-repair
(e.g., Sato, 2008; Shehadeh, 2001), and they were examined according to types of triggers as
well (e.g., Kasper, 1985; Levelt, 1983; Sato, 2012a; Schegloff et al, 1977). However, to the
best of my knowledge, effects of grammatical difficulty of triggers on the occurrences and the
success rates of self-initiated self-repair have not been examined. The current study was
aimed at examining whether the occurrence and the success rate of self-initiated self-repair
are influenced by grammatical difficulty of triggers. The following two research questions
were formulated.
193
1): Is the occurrence of self-initiated self-repair influenced by grammatical difficulty of
triggers?
2): Is the success rate of self-initiated self-repair influenced by grammatical difficulty of
triggers?
8.2.2 Method
8.2.2.1 Participants and Procedure
Participants and procedures are the same as ones in Study 11: Data obtained in Study 11
were used to be analyzed for the purposes of this study.
8.2.2.2 Analysis
Students’ self-initiated self-repair was categorized in terms of grammatical difficulty of
triggers. In categorizing grammatical items as easy or difficult, categorizations A and B were
used for the analysis, as is done in Study 3 (Chapter 4). Categorization A is:
Early developmental (easy):
1. Definite article (the) 2. Irregular past tense 3. Plural S
Late developmental (difficult):
1. Indefinite article (a, an) 2. Regular past tense 3. Relative clauses
4. Active & passive voice 5. Third person singular S
Categorization B is:
Early developmental (easy):
2. Progressive (-ing) 2. Plural S 3. B coupla 4. Be auxiliary 5. Possessive –s
Late developmental(difficult):
2. Irregular past tense 2. Regular past tense 3. Third person singular S
194
4. Articles (a/the)
The following are examples of self-initiated self-repair categorized in terms of
grammatical difficulty of triggers either early (easy) or late (difficult) developmental. Trigger
is written in italics, and repair, including failed one, is underlined.
Example 1 Definite article, the (early in A, late in B)
S1: I like playing a piano, playing the piano. (successful)
Example 2 Irregular past tense (early in A, late in B)
S2: I eat many, eated many foods when I was a child. (failed)
Example 3 Plural S (early in A and B)
S3: When I was a high school student, I read many book, books. (successful)
Example 4 Indefinite article (a, an) (late in A and B)
S4: My friend had dog, had a dog in her home. (successful)
Example 5 Regular past tense (late in A and B)
S5: My father give, given me present. (failed)
Example 6 Third person singular S (late in A and B)
S6: Our coach teach us, teaches us tennis. (successful)
Example 7 Progressive (-ing)(early in B)
S7: I studied, was studying, when my friend telephoned me. (successful)
195
Example 8 Be copula (early in B)
S8: He and I am, was in the same team. (failed)
Example 9 Be auxiliary (early in B)
S9: I can…is, I can be a teacher. (successful)
In Examples 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9 the students successfully initiated to repair their errors.
However, in examples 2, 5 and 8 they failed to do so. The former was counted as successful
and the latter as failed. One rater conducted categorization of self-initiated self-repair. A week
after the first categorization, the same rater conducted it again. This method of classification
follows Alderson et al. (1995), which explains that multiple rating sessions increase the
reliability of the rating. Where there were discrepancies between the two ratings (3 cases were
recorded), a second rater, a high school English teacher with more than 15 years of teaching
experience, was invited to rate them. After discussion the disagreement was solved.
8.2.3 Results
8.2.3.1 Overall Results
In total, 111 self-initiated self-repair attempts occurred. Successful repair occurred 86
times and failed repair occurred 25 times. On average, one student attempted to self-repair 3.5
times, minimum 1 and maximum 8, and SD was 2.09. As for the success rate per person,
average was 75.0%, minimum 0%, maximum 100%, and SD was 31.32.
Attempts to repair grammatical errors were made 34 times. Among them successful repair
occurred 26 times and failed repair occurred 8 times. On average, one student attempted to
repair his/her grammatical errors 1.1 times, minimum 0 and maximum 3, and SD was 1.16. As
196
for the success rate, average was 76.5%, minimum 0%, maximum 100% and SD was 29.47.
Individual differences were not quite large in frequencies but large in success rates.
8.2.3.2 Is the Occurrence of Self-initiated Self-repair Influenced by Grammatical
Difficulty of Triggers? (RQ1)
The first research question addressed the occurrence of self-initiated self-repair in terms of
grammatical difficulty of triggers. Twenty of them belonged to items in Categorization A
(Early developmental: Definite article (the), Irregular past tense, Plural S. Late
developmental: Indefinite article (a, an), Regular past tense, Relative clauses, Active &
passive voice, Third person singular S), and 9 (45%) were categorized as early developmental
or easy items and 11(55%) were as late developmental or difficult items. Twenty-seven of
self-initiated self-repair belonged to items in Categorization B, (Early developmental:
Progressive (-ing), Plural S, Be copula, Be auxiliary, Possessive S. Late developmental:
Irregular past tense, Regular past tense, Third person singular S, Articles (a/the), and 11
(41%) were categorized as early developmental or easy items and 16 (58%) were as late
developmental or difficult items. Table 8.6 summarizes the occurrence of self-initiated
self-repair categorized by the grammatical difficulty of triggers.
Table 8.6: Occurrence of self-initiated self-repair categorized by the grammatical difficulty of triggers
Early (easy) Late (difficult ) Total
Categorization A 9(45%) 11(55%) 20
Categorization B 11(41%) 16(58%) 27
A ＋ B 20(43%) 27(57%) 47
To examine whether there was a statistical difference in the occurrence of self-initiated
197
self-repair attempts between early developmental and late developmental items, a chi-square
statistic was calculated in Categorizations A, B, and A and B combined. The results showed
there was no statistical difference in each of the three situations.
8.2.3.3 Is the Success Rate of Self-initiated Self-repair Influenced by Grammatical
Difficulty of Triggers? (RQ2)
The second research question addressed the success rate of self-initiated self-repair in
terms of grammatical difficulty of triggers. Table 8.7 shows the numbers of self-initiated
self-repair attempts, successful moves, failed moves and success rate for early developmental
or easy items in Categorization A. Table 8.8 shows the same for late developmental or
difficult items in the categorization. Table 8.9 shows the numbers of self-initiated self-repair
attempts, successful moves, failed moves and success rate for early developmental or easy
items in Categorization B. Table 8.10 shows the same for late developmental or difficult
structures in the categorization.
Table 8.7: The numbers of attempts, successful moves and failed moves of early developmental or
easy items (Categorization A)
Type Attempts Successful Failed
Definite article (the) 2 1 1
Irregular past tense 3 2 1
Plural S 4 4 0
Total 9 7 2
Success rate=78%
198
Table 8.8: The numbers of attempts, successful moves and failed moves of late developmental or
difficult items (Categorization A)
Type Attempts Successful Failed
Indefinite article (a, an) 2 1 1
Regular past tense 6 5 1
Third person singular S 3 3 0
Total 11 9 2
Success rate= 82%
Table 8.9: The numbers of attempts, successful moves and failed moves of early developmental or
easy items (Categorization B)
Type Attempts Successful Failed
Progressive (-ing) 1 1 0
Plural S 4 4 0
Be copula 5 3 2
Be auxiliary 1 1 0
Total 11 9 2
Success rate = 82%
199
Table 8.10: The numbers of attempts, successful moves and failed moves of late developmental or
difficult items (Categorization B)
Type Attempts Successful Failed
Irregular past tense 3 2 1
Regular past tense 6 5 1
Third person singular S 3 3 0
Article (a, the) 4 3 0
Total 16 14 2
Success rate =88%
In Categorization A, success rate of self-initiated self-repair of easy items (78%) was
lower than that of difficult ones (82%). In Categorization B, which has taken some account of
Japanese learners’ developmental progression, success rate of difficult items was higher
(88%) than that of easy ones (82%). To examine whether there was a statistical difference in
the success rate between easy items and difficult items, a chi-square statistic test with Yates’
continuity correction was calculated because there were figures smaller than five in cells. This
measurement was conducted in both Categorizations A and B, and it was found that there was
not a statistical difference in each situation.
Grammatical errors that were not self-repaired were also counted. Table 8.11 summarizes
the results.
200
Table 8.11 The numbers of grammatical errors that were not self-repaired.
Type Frequency Category
Definite article, (the) 6 early in A, late in B
Irregular past tense 10 early in A, late in B
Plural S 22 early in A and B
Indefinite article (a, an) 27 late in A and B
Regular past tense 4 late in A and B
Third person singular S 27 late in A and B
Progressive (-ing) 4 early in B
Be copula 24 early in B
Be auxiliary 4 early in B
Indefinite article (a, an) and Third person singular S are the most ignored or unnoticed errors
(27times), followed by Be copula (24 times) and Plural S (22 times).
8.2.4 Discussion and Conclusion
It was revealed that students attempted to repair their errors that were categorized as
difficult (55% in Categorization A, 58% in Categorization B) more frequently than ones
categorized as easy (45% in Categorization A, 41% in Categorization B). However, there was
not a statistical difference, meaning that students are likely to successfully repair
grammatically difficult items as frequently as easy ones. It was also revealed that success
rates of difficult items were higher (82% in Categorization A, 88% in Categorization B) than
those of easy items (78% in Categorization A, 82% in Categorization B). However, as there
was not a statistical difference, they are likely to succeed in repairing grammatically difficult
items as well as easy ones.
201
In interpreting the high success rates of self-initiated self-repair in grammatical errors
regardless of grammatical difficulty of triggers, we can refer to Kormos (2006), who claimed
that formally instructed foreign language speakers who are taught grammar explicitly pay full
attention to the linguistic form. Japanese EFL high school learners, such as the students in the
study, are learning English in the accuracy-oriented learning environment in which grammar
is taught explicitly in general. It can be assumed that the students in the study, who had
explicit knowledge of even difficult items, monitored their output by using explicit knowledge
and corrected their ungrammatical utterances successfully. At the moment of detecting errors
or mistakes in their original utterances, students noticed a gap between the utterances and the
target language. This led them to produce a modified output (Swain & Lapkin, 1995)). It is
important to note that David provided students with adequate time for them to produce an
output. This presented them with sufficient time and the opportunity to self-repair their
erroneous original utterances. This situation created favorable conditions for self-initiated
self-repair as defined in previous studies (Shehadeh, 2001; Yuan & Ellis, 2003).
We have to look at, however, the fact that a lot of errors were not self-repaired. The most
ignored or unnoticed items are Indefinite article (a, an) and Third person singular S, both of
which were categorized as late developmental or difficult items, followed by Be copula and
Plural S, which were categorized as early developmental or easy item. Although both types of
items (easy or difficult) were frequently unnoticed, it can be argued that difficult items were
less likely to be attempted to be repaired. Further study is definitely needed with retrospective
interviews with all of the students to examine why they tried or not tried to repair. This would
reveal more detailed mechanism of self-initiated self-repair.
As opposed to merely noticing an L2 example provided by feedback such as recasts,
self-initiated self-repair involves a higher level of cognitive activity, accompanied by noticing
the gap (Egi, 2010). Lantolf and Pavlenko (1995) states that self-repair is a desirable
202
condition for fostering learning, by asserting that language learning depends not so much on
input as on the choices individual learners make. Because of its high occurrence, prevalence
and constancy, it also should be regarded as a normal learning strategy (Shehadeh, 2001). As
the present study showed a high success rate of self-initiated self-repair regardless of
grammatical difficulty of triggers, it can be suggested that self-initiated self-repair should
therefore be utilized more in Japanese high school classrooms so that learners can enhance
accuracy of their output performance
This small-scale study examined whether the effects of self-initiated self-repair are
influenced by grammatical difficulty of triggers, and reported the findings. However, this
study does have a crucial limitation. As Varnosfadrani and Basturkmen (2009) acknowledged,
it was difficult to categorize grammatical items as early developmental (easy) or late
developmental (difficult). In the current study, categorization employed in Varnosfadrani and
Basturkmen (2009) was adopted as Categorization A. However, this categorization, which
treated Indefinite article (a, an), Regular past tense, Relative clauses, Active & passive voice
and Third person singular S as all equally difficult, may lack its validity. As for
Categorization B, which was based on Krashen(1982) and was adapted referring to Shirahata
(1988), it has some problems, for example, definite article and indefinite article were counted
together; other previous studies revealed Plural S is acquired later by Japanese learners. In
this study, items were divided into two groups with the first half of four items regarded as
easy and the second half of the four items regarded as difficult. However, this categorization
can be problematic. In addition, as two different categorizations were operationalized, in
counting total number of occurrence of self-initiated self-repair categorized by the
grammatical difficulty of triggers (Table 8.10), some items, such as Regular past tense and
Third person singular, were counted twice. In the future study, more valid categorization
should be carried out after overcoming these issues.
203
8.3 Summary of Chapter 8
Study 11 showed the relatively high success rate of self-initiated self-repair, revealing that
the occurrence and success rates of self-initiated self-repair vary according to the types of
triggers. These findings offered several pedagogical implications. Study 12 also showed the
high success rate of self-initiated self-repair regardless of grammatical difficulty of triggers,
which implies the importance of creating situations where students can self-initiate to repair
their own errors and mistakes.
Self-initiated self-repair involves a higher level of cognitive activity, positively
accompanied by noticing the gap, as opposed to merely noticing an L2 example provided by
feedback such as recasts (Egi, 2010). Shehadeh (2001) has stated that self-initiated self-repair
is a normal learning/teaching strategy because of its high occurrence, prevalence and
constancy. This study reported a relatively high success rate of self-initiated self-repair,
supporting the argument that self-initiated self-repair is an effective learning /teaching
strategy. It should therefore be utilized more in Japanese high school classrooms.
However, because of limitations of the studies, a focused empirical study in different
settings with introspective data is required so that we can validate the findings and
interpretations of the observed phenomena in the studies. If further studies support the
findings and interpretations of the phenomena found in the two studies, the importance of
self-initiated self-repair for Japanese students’ learning English should be more widely
acknowledged.
204
Chapter 9
Conclusion
This chapter presents a comprehensive summary of the findings of the present thesis. The
summary focuses on the effects of recasts on Japanese EFL learners’ learning English as well
as the phenomena and the effects of self-initiated self-repair on their learning. It also
discusses the importance of recasts and self-initiated self-repair and the relation between them,
followed by pedagogical implications, limitations of the studies and suggestions for the future
research.
9. 1 Summary of Findings
9.1.1 Effects of Recasts on Japanese Learners
In general, it was found that recasts provided to Japanese high school learners and
university students are effective in the process of their learning, though the effects can vary
according to some variables, such as recasts features and learners’ proficiency levels.
9.1.1.1 Recasts Given to Lower-Level Japanese High School Learners
Study 1 investigated the effectiveness of recasts on low-level Japanese EFL learners and
the findings implied that recast are less likely to be noticed by them. However, as the study
found that the teacher provided recasts inappropriately (e.g., without corrective purpose,
without considering learners’ low proficiency), the study still implied that recasts could be
effective with a little thought by the teacher, such as making recasts shorter without multiple
changes, making them salient by changing the tone of voice, using facial expressions, or
205
adding a pause, and son.
9.1.1.2 Recasts Given to Low Intermediate-Level Japanese High School Learners
The results of the studies which explored into the effects into low-intermediate students
(Studies, 2, 3, 4) have shown that recasts with short with only a single change recasts are
more likely to be noticed by learners irrespective of the degree of difficulty of grammatical
features. Qualitative analysis of students’ comments revealed that recasts are encouraging and
motivating for learners due to their unobstructive nature. We can safely conclude that recasts
can be utilized with Japanese senior high school English class, at least, with intermediate level
students.
9.1.1.3 Noticing
How we can measure the effectiveness of recasts has been an issue. Study 5 has attempted
to make clear this issue by examining university students’ noticing through stimulated recall
interview. The results of the analysis have shown that learners’ correct reformulations of
previous erroneous utterances after recasts are indicators of noticing, while mere
acknowledgement is not, which implies that counting repair is a valid measurement for the
effectiveness of recasts. The findings obtained through stimulated recall interviews with
intermediate level university students in Study 6, revealed that the degree of change and
length of recasts did not affect learners’ noticing. However, it was found that the effects of
recasts on learners’ noticing can be different according to error types (i.e., grammatical,
lexical or phonological).
9.1.1.4 Written Recasts
Investigation into the effects of written recasts on university students’ writing (Studies 8
206
and 9) showed relative effectiveness of written recasts. Study 8 found that written recasts can
contribute to the development of accuracy and fluency in their writing from the first draft to
the second draft reducing trade-off effect between them. Study 9 implied that written recasts
provided to grammatical errors are effective irrespective of the degree of difficulty of
grammatical features. These findings suggest teachers utilize beneficial effects of written
recast as well as oral recasts.
9.1.2 Self-initiated Self-repair
The study which examined self-initiated self-repair attempts conducted by low-level high
school students (Study 10) implied that it is unlikely that learners with low English
proficiency would notice their own mistakes or errors to correct them. The study concluded
that allowing low-level learners to converse freely may not necessarily lead to acquisition.
However, studies conducted with a little bit higher level learners than ones in Study 10
showed relatively high success rate of self-initiated self-repair. The study also revealed that
the occurrence and success rates of self-initiated self-repair vary according to the types of
triggers with several pedagogical implications. Although there were some limitations, Study
12 implied low-intermediate learners can self-initiate to self-repair their grammatical errors
regardless of grammatical difficulty of triggers. These two studies imply the importance of
creating situations where students can self-initiate to repair their own errors and mistakes.
9.2 Implications
This section will present a general overall summary of pedagogical implications of the
studies in the thesis. As recasts are not interrupting the flow of the communication without
discouraging or demotivating students from continuing communication, they should be
utilized with Japanese EFL learners who, in general, lack confidence in communication in
207
English. The effectiveness of recasts can vary according to several variables as were already
mentioned in the previous chapters. Teachers should keep these variables, such as students’
proficiency levels, recasts features, and learning environment, in their mind in providing
recasts. I would suggest that teacher training programs should be well designed so that
teachers can learn how to provide recasts effectively to students. Not only oral recasts but
written recasts should be well utilized in the writing class. Although it is heavy task for
teachers to write feedback to students’ essays, it is worthwhile doing so by using written
feedback in the form of recasts as this can contribute to the development of their writing,
possibly motivating students more in learning writing. It’s very difficult to judge whether
students noticed their errors or mistakes after their being given recasts. This study implied
that it is not problematic for teachers to regard students’ repair after recasts as evidence of
their noticing. This is rather a desirable implication for teachers since conducting simulated
recall interviews and pre/post tests with students are impractical in actual classroom
environment.
As for implications suggested by studies on self-initiated self-repair, as low-level learners
are less likely to self-initiate to correct their errors, teachers may have to use negative or
positive feedback without having high expectation on learners’ self-initiated self-repair.
However, in teaching relatively higher level learners, teachers can expect learners’ own
corrections by giving time to do so. It is also important for teachers to know that prospect of
success in self-initiated self-repair is different according to the types of triggers so that they
can decide whether they should give feedback such as recasts immediately after learners’
errors or expect their own corrections.
As is mentioned in Chapter 1, it is crucial for students to notice their own errors by
themselves to repair them in a learning environment where they are not always
communicating with teachers or more proficient speakers who can provide feedback such as
208
recasts. Even when they are interacting with teachers, they should ideally self-correct their
own errors because the act of self-initiated self-repair is a higher level of cognitive activity,
positively accompanied by noticing the gap, than noticing an L2 example provided by
feedback such as recasts (Egi, 2010).
The results of the studies in the thesis imply that teachers may have to provide correct
forms in the form of recasts after making time or opportunities for students to self-initiate to
self-repair their errors. The findings also suggest that this is especially so while interacting
with higher level learners. Teachers could, at first, provide opportunities of self-initiated
self-repair and then supply recasts as a last resort so that learners finally can produce
reformulated correct utterances. It can be very difficult to decide when and how to supply
what kind of recasts to learners, but it is pedagogically crucial for teachers to understand the
different effects of recasts according to various variables as well as the mechanism of
self-initiated self-repair explained in detail in this thesis.
9.3 Limitations
There a number of limitations in the present thesis. Since they already are pointed out in
the previous chapters, three crucial limitations will be noted in this chapter. First, except for
studies that examined learners’ noticing (Studies 5 and 6 in Chapter 5), systematic
retrospective interviews with all of the students were not conducted. It can be argued that
findings and interpretations of results in the studies should be considered cautiously. Ideally,
though it is practically difficult, to confirm the interpretations of the observed phenomena,
retrospective interviews should be systematically done with all of the students and the
interlocutors.
Second, statistical analyses were not conducted in several quantitative studies. In those
studies raw frequencies or percentages were shown to interpret the results. Even when
209
statistical analyses were conducted, appropriateness of the measurements can be questioned.
In Studies 5 and 6, for example, the cases of recasts for the three participants were merged
into one set of data because of the reason that English learning backgrounds and English
proficiencies were not so different. However, it can be argued that this would not be an
appropriate step for basic analysis with descriptive statistics and can violate assumptions of
independence of the inferential statistics tests that were subsequently used. To what extent we,
researchers in this area, should be strict on statistics can be a topic of discussion, but more
robust statistical methods that can make interpretations more convincing should be needed.
Third, in the studies, the numbers of the participants who participated in the studies were
relatively small. It can be argued that individual differences, such as proficiency level,
working memory, grammatical sensitivity and motivation as well as their learning
environment (e.g., accuracy-oriented or fluency-oriented class, teacher-centered or
student-centered class) can interact with the results of the studies on recasts and self-initiated
self-repair. With more participants in each study, we could have drawn more firm conclusions.
9.4 Future Research
There remain several issues we have to take into account in addition to limitations pointed
out above. Learners’ affective factors established by, for example, the teacher-student
relationship, emotions triggered by the teachers and their classroom management, may impact
learners’ perceptions of and receptivity to recasts. In the present thesis, interlocutors were
either native speakers or non native speakers of English. This teachers’ nativeness could have
also affected learners’ performances in the interactions. Thus, learners’ affective factors
influenced by teachers and teacher-student relations should be explored in future study.
As is briefly mentioned earlier, motivation should be one of the most important issues.
Indeed, motivation can be one of the factors that determines success or failure of learners’
210
self-initiated self-repair and successful uptake after recasts. It can safely be assumed that
those learners who are high willing to produce correct utterances would be more sensitive to
their own errors and recasts provided after them so that they can produce better utterances
than those who are not willing to correct errors. During the studies, I, as a teacher-researcher,
often observed or felt that students who did not seem to be highly motivated to learn in the
class performed badly (e.g., tried not to self-initiate to repair errors or listen carefully to the
interlocutors’ feedback). It can be difficult to conduct studies that can control motivational
factors since learners’ motivations are not static but state-dependent, but future studies should
ideally shed light on this issue.
In the studies of this thesis, three interlocutors had interactions with the students. It seems
that their provision of recasts differed in its goal. Even by the same interlocutor, depending on
the context, recasts were provided with different goals. They were provided sometime as
linguistic correction with the interlocutors’ focus on linguistic accuracy whereas in other
situations as a way to facilitate communication with the interlocutors’ focus on meaning.
Whether the interlocutors’ focus was on linguistic correction or content instruction could have
affected not only learners’ successful uptake after recasts but their successful self-initiated
repair. In future research, the relationship between the interlocutors’ goals (whether it is
intentional or unintentional) and learners’ performance should be examined.
Some learners may prefer recasts while some may prefer self-correction. Yoshida’s study
with Japanese EFL learners’ (Yoshida, 2008) revealed that both teachers and learners tended
to believe self-correction more effective despite the fact that teachers preferred to use recasts
because of time efficiency. In the previous section, it was implicated that learners should, at
first, be given opportunities for self-initiated self-repair followed by the provision of recasts.
However, that can be just a theoretical claim derived from a limited number of studies. Future
research should be one which sheds light on how and when teachers should or should not
211
provide corrective feedback such as recasts.
Finally, the present thesis that consists of several studies has shown some useful findings
for teaching in the Japanese EFL environment. However, my findings may not be generalized
to every English classroom due to the limitations mentioned earlier. More studies of this kind,
especially focusing on self-initiated self-repair and recasts are needed for deeper
understanding of them.
212
References
Al-Surmi, M. (2012). Learners' noticing of recasts of morpho-syntactic errors: Recast types
and delayed recognition. System, 40, 226-236.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language
learning in the Zone of Proximal Development. Modern Language Journal, 78, 465-483.
Alderson, J.C., Clapham, B.J., & Wall, D. (1995). Language test construction and evaluation.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, J. (1995). Developing expertise. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive psychology and
its implications (4th ed.) (pp. 272-304). New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Ashwell, T. (2000). Patterns of teacher response to student writing in a multiple-draft
composition classroom: Is content feedback followed by form feedback the best method?
Journal of Second Language Writing, 9, 227-257.
Aston, G. (1986). Troubleshooting in interaction with learners: The more the merrier? Applied
Linguistics, 7, 128-143.
Ayoun, D. (2001). The role of negative and positive feedback in the second language
acquisition of the passé compose and the imparfait. The Modern Language Journal, 85,
226-243.
Ayoun, D. (2004). The effectiveness of written recasts in the second language acquisition of
aspectual distinctions in French: A follow-up study. The Modern Language Journal, 88,
31-55.
Bao, M., Egi, T., & Han, Y. (2011). Classroom study on noticing and recast features:
213
Capturing learner noticing with uptake and stimulated recall. System, 39, 215-228.
Bitchener, J. (2008). Evidence in support of written corrective feedback. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 17, 102-118.
Bitchener, J. & Knoch, U. (2010). Raising the linguistic accuracy level of advanced L2
writers with written corrective feedback. Journal of Second Language Writing, 19,
207-217.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effects of different types of corrective
feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 14, 191-125.
Braidi, S.M. (2002). Reexamining the role of recasts in native-speaker/nonnative-speaker
interactions. Language Learning, 52, 1-42.
Brown, H.D. (1994). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy.
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Brown, R., & P. Nation. (1997).Teaching speaking: Suggestions for the classroom. The
Language Teacher Online, 21, 11-15.
Carroll, S. (1999). Putting ‘input’ in its proper place. Second Language Research, 15,
337-388.
Carroll, S. (2000). Input and evidence: The raw material of second language acquisition.
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Carroll, S., & Swain, M. (1993). Explicit and implicit feedback negative feedback: An
empirical study of the learning of linguistic generalizations. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 15, 357-386.
Chaudron, C. (1977). A descriptive model of discourse in the corrective treatment of learners’
errors. Language Learning, 27, 29-46.
Chaudron, C. (1985). Intake: On models and methods for discovering learners’ processing of
input. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 1-14.
214
Chaudron, C. (1988). Second language classrooms: Research on teaching and learning. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Coffin, C., Curry, M. J., Goodman, S., Hewings, A., Lillis, T. M., & Swann, J. (2003).
Teaching academic writing: A toolkit for higher education. New York: Routledge.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Doughty, C. (2001). Cognitive underpinnings of focus on form. In: P. Robinson (Ed.),
Cognition and second language instruction (pp.206-257). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Doughty, C., & Varela, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty, & J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition
(pp.114-138).New York: Cambridge University Press.
Egi, T. (2004). Verbal reports, noticing, and SLA research. Language Awareness, 13, 243-264.
Egi, T. (2007). Interpreting recasts as linguistic evidence: The roles of linguistic target, length,
and degree of change. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 29, 511-537.
Egi, T. (2008). Investigating stimulated recall as a cognitive measure: Reactivity and verbal
reports in SLA research methodology. Language Awareness, 17, 212-228.
Egi, T. (2010). Uptake, modified output, and learner perceptions of recasts: Learner responses
as language awareness. The Modern Language Journal, 94, 1-21.
Ellis, R. (1987). Interlanguage variability in narrative discourse: Style shifting in the use of
the past tense. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 9, 1-12.
Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1997a). SLA research and language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (1997b). Second language acquisition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2003). Task-based language learning and teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
215
press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33, 209-224.
Ellis, R., & Barkhuizen, G.P. (2005). Analyzing learner language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Ellis, R., Basturkmen, H., & Loewen, S. (2001). Learner uptake in communicative ESL lessons.
Language Learning, 51, 281–318.
Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Erlam, R. (2006). Implicit and explicit corrective feedback and the
acquisition of L2 grammar. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 339-368.
Ellis, R., & Sheen, Y. (2006). Re-examining the role of recasts in second language acquisition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28, 575-600.
Ellis, R., Sheen, Y., Murakami, M., & Takshima, H. (2008). The effects of focused and
unfocused written corrective feedback in an English as a foreign language context.
System, 36, 337-352.
Ferris, D. (1999). The case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes: A response to
Truscott (1996). Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 1-10.
Ferris, D. (2004). The “grammar correction” debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where
do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime…?) Journal of Second
Language Writing, 13, 49-62.
Ferris, D. (2010). Second language writing research and written corrective feedback in SLA.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32, 181-201.
Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it
need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10, 161-184.
Foster, P., & Skehan, P. (1996). The influence of planning on performance in task-based
learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 299-324.
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all
216
reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21,354-375.
Fotos, S. (2002). Structure-based interactive tasks for the EFL grammar learner. In E. Hinkel,
& S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspective on grammar teaching in second language
classrooms(pp.135-154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, S. (1988). Integrating research areas: A framework for second language studies. Applied
Linguistics, 9, 198-217.
Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Gass, S. (2003). Input and interaction. In C. Doughty, & M. H. Long (Eds.), The Handbook of
Second Language Acquisition (pp. 224-255). Oxford: Blackwell.
Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research.
Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (1993). Second Language Acquisition. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Gatbonton, E. & Segalowitz, N. (1988). Creative automatization: Principles for promoting
fluency within a communicative framework. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 473-492.
Harley, B. (1993). Instructional strategies and SLA in early French immersion. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 15, 245-260.
Hartshorn, K.J., Evans, N.W., Merrill, P.F., Sudweeks, R.R., Strong-Krause, D., & Anderson,
N.J. (2010). Effects of dynamic corrective feedback on ESL writing accuracy. TESOL
Quarterly, 44, 84-109.
Hughes, A. (2003). Testing for language teachers. (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hunt, K. (1970). Do sentences in the second language grow like those in the first? TESOL
Quarterly, 4, 195-202.
217
Iwashita, N. (2003). Negative feedback and positive evidence in task-based interaction. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 25, 1-36.
Izumi, S. (2002). Output, input enhancement, and the noticing hypothesis: An experimental
study on ESL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 541–577.
Izumi, S. (2009). Focus on form wo toriireta atarashii eigo kyouiku [New English education
which includes focus on form]. Tokyo: Taisyuukan Shoten.
Kan, M. (2006). Nihon no eigo kyouiku no genjo to kadai [The actual situation of English
education in Japan and problems]. In Y. Otsu (Ed.), Nihon no eigo kyouiku ni hitsuyou
na koto [Things required in English education in Japan] (pp. 171-182). Tokyo:
Keiogijuku Daigaku Shuppankai.
Kasper, G. (1985). Repair in foreign language teaching. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 7, 200-215.
Kepner, C. (1991). An experiment in the relationship of types of written feedback to the
development of second-language writing skills. The Modern Language Journal, 75,
305-313.
Kim, J-H., & Han, Z-H. (2007). Recasts in communicative EFL classes: Do teacher intent and
learner interpretation overlap? In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second
language acquisition (pp. 269-297). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Komros, J. (1999). Monitoring and self-repair. Language Learning, 49, 303-342.
Kormos, J. (2000). The timing of self-repairs in second language speech production. Studies
in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 145-167.
Kormos, J. (2006). Speech production and second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford:
Pergamon.
218
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
Krashen, S. (1994). The input hypothesis and its rivals. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and Explicit
learning of Languages (pp.45-77). London: Academic Press.
Lantolf, J. P., & Pavlenko, A. (1995). Sociocultural theory and second language acquisition.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 15, 108-124.
Leeman, J. (2003). Recasts and second language development. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 25, 37-63.
Levelt, W. (1983). Monitoring and self-repair in speech. Cognition, 33, 41-103.
Levelt, W. (1989). Speaking: from intention to articulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lightbown, P. (2000). Classroom SLA research and second language teaching. Applied
Linguistics, 21, 431-462.
Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1993). How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Livingstone, C. (1983). Role play in language learning. Singapore: Longman.
Loewen, S. (2004). Uptake in incidental focus on form in meaning-focused ESL lessons.
Language Learning, 54, 153-188.
Loewen, S. (2005). Incidental focus on form and second language learning. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 27, 361-386.
Loewen, S. (2009). Recasts in multiple response focus on form episodes. In A. Mackey, & C.
Polio (Eds.), Multiple perspectives on interaction. (pp.176-196). New York: Routledge.
Loewen, S., & Nabei, T, (2007). Measuring the effects of oral corrective feedback on L2
knowledge. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language
acquisition (pp. 361-377). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
219
Loewen, S., & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom: Characteristics,
explicitness, and effectiveness. Modern Language Journal, 90, 536-556.
Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation of
comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-41.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K.
De Bot, R. Ginsberg., & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural
perspective (pp.39-52). Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Long, M. (1996). The role of the linguistic environment in second language acquisition. In W.
Ritchie, & T. Bhatia (Eds.), Handbook of Second Language Acquisition (pp.413-468).
San Diego: Academic Press.
Long, M. (2007). Problems in SLA. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Long, M., Inagaki, S., & Ortega, L. (1998). The role of implicit negative feedback in SLA:
Model and recasts in Japanese and Spanish. Modern Language Journal, 82, 357-371.
Loschky, L. (1994). Comprehensible input and second language acquisition. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 16, 303-323.
Lyster, R. (1998a). Recasts, repetition and ambiguity in L2 classroom discourse. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 20, 50-81.
Lyster, R. (1998b). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation to error
types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48, 183-218.
Lyster, R. (2004). Differential effects of prompts and recasts in form-focused instruction.
Studies in Second Language acquisition, 26, 399-432.
Lyster, R. (2007). Learning and teaching languages through content. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins.
Lyster, R., & Mori, H. (2006). Interactional feedback and instructional counterbalance.
Studies in Second. Language Acquisition, 28, 269-300.
220
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of form in
communicative classroom. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 37-66.
Lyster, R., Saito, K., & Sato, M. (2013). Oral corrective feedback in second language
classrooms. Language Teaching, 46, 1-40.
MacKain, K. K., Best, C. T., & Strange, W. (1981). Categorical perception of English /r/and
/l/ by Japanese bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 369-390.
Mackey, A. (2007). The role of conversational interaction in second language acquisition. In
A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in second language acquisition: A series of
empirical studies (pp.1-26). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A., & Goo, J. (2007). Interaction research in SLA: A meta-analysis and research
synthesis. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction and second language
acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp.407-450). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mackey, A., & Philp, J. (1998). Conversational interaction and second language development:
Recasts, responses, and red herrings? Modern Language Journal, 82, 338-356.
Mackey, A., Gass, S., & McDonough, K. (2000). How do learners perceive interactional
feedback? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 22, 471-497.
MacWhinney, B. (1987). The competition model. In B. MacWhinney (Ed.), Mechanisms of
Language Acquisition (pp.249-308). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McDonough, K. (2005). Identifying the impact of negative feedback and learners’ responses
on ESL question development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27, 79-103.
McDonough, K. (2007). Interactional feedback and the emergence of simple past activity
verbs in L2 English. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction and second
language acquisition: A series of empirical studies (pp.323-360). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
McDonough, K., & Mackey, A. (2006). Response to recasts: Repetitions, primed production,
221
and linguistic development. Language Learning, 56, 693-720.
Mohan, B., & Beckett, G. H. (2001). A functional approach to research on content-based
language learning: Recasts in casual explanations. The Canadian Modern Language
Review 58, 133-155.
Muranoi, H. (2000). Focus on form through interaction enhancement: Integrating formal
instruction into a communicative task in EFL classrooms. Language Learning, 50,
617-673.
Nabei, T., & Swain, M. (2002). Learner awareness of recasts in classroom interaction: a case
study of an adult EFL student's second language learning. Language Awareness, 11,
43-62.
Nakamori,T. (2009). Chunking and Instruction: The place of sounds, lexis, and grammar in
English language teaching. Tokyo: Hituzi Syobo.
Nation, I.S.P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nation, I.S.P., & Meara, P. (2002). Vocabulary. In R. Schmidt (Ed.), An introduction to
applied linguistics (pp. 35-54). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Neustupny, J.V. (1982). Gaikokuzin tono Communication [Communication with non-Japanese
people]. Iwanami Shoten, Tokyo.
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to language learners.
Language Learning, 51, 719-758.
Nugrahenny,T. Z. (2007). Teacher and students attitudes toward teacher feedback. RELC
Journal, 38, 38-52.
Oliver, R. (1995). Negative feedback in child NS-NNS conversation. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 17, 459-481.
Ortega, L. (2003). Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A
222
research synthesis of college-level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 24, 492-518.
Ostovar Namaghi, S. A. (2010). Differentiated error correction: A grounded theory. Asian
EFL Journal, Professional Teaching Articles, 45, 4-24.
Panova, I., & Lyster, R. (2002). Patterns of corrective feedback and uptake in an adult ESL
classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 36, 573-595.
Payne, J. S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 oral proficiency through sychronous
CMC: Output, working memory, and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20,
7-32.
Philp, J. (2003). Constraints on “noticing the gap”: Nonnative speaker’s noticing of recasts in
NS-NNS Interaction. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 25, 99-123.
Pica, T. (1988). Interlanguage adjustments as outcome of NS-NNS negotiated interaction.
Language Learning, 38, 45-73.
Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability and syllabus construction. In K.Hyltenstam, & M.
Pienemann (Eds.), Modeling and assessing second language acquisition (pp.23-75).
Clevedon, North Somerset: Multilingual Matters.
Robinson, P. (1995). Attention, memory, and the “noticing” hypothesis. Language Learning,
45, 283-331.
Robinson, P. (2001). Task complexity, task difficulty, and task production: Exploring
interactions in a componential framework. Applied Linguistics, 22, 27-57.
Saita, T. (2003). Koko nyugakuji no eigo nouryokuchi no nenji suii. [Annual transitions of
English ability at entering high schools]. Step Bulletin, 15, 12-22.
Saito, H. (1994). Teachers’ practices and students' preferences for feedback on second
language writing: A case study of adult ESL learners. TESL Canada Journal, 2, 46-70.
Saito, K. & Lyster, R. (2012). Investigating the pedagogical potential of recasts for L2 vowel
acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 462, 385-396.
223
Sakai, H. (2004). Roles of output and feedback for L2 learners’ noticing, JALT Journal, 26,
25-54.
Sato, M., & Lyster, R. (2007). Modified output of Japanese EFL learners: variable effects of
interlocutor versus feedback types. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction in
second language acquisition (pp. 123-142). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sato, R. (2005). A comparison of the effectiveness of a closed task and an open Task. KATE
Bulletin, 19, 23-33.
Sato, R. (2006). Examining the effectiveness of “recast” for Japanese high school students.
Eigokyoiku [English Education], 8, 5-12.
Sato, R. (2008a). The relationship between fluency and accuracy in writing. ARELE, 19,
71-80.
Sato, R. (2008b). Self-initiated modified output on the road to comprehensibility. JALT
Journal, 30, 223-240.
Sato, R. (2009a). Considering the effectiveness of recasts on Japanese high school learners’
learning. The Journal of Asia TEFL, 6, 193-216.
Sato, R. (2009b).Suggestions for creating teaching approaches suitable to the Japanese EFL
Environment. The Language Teacher, 33, 11-14.
Sato, R. (2010a). Measuring effects of recasts according to grammatical difficulty. Bulletin of
Nara University of Education-Cultural and Social Science-, 59, 187-192.
Sato, R. (2010b).Reconsidering the effectiveness and suitability of PPP and TBLT in the
Japanese EFL classroom. JALT Journal, 32, 189-200.
Sato, R. (2011a). Effects of recasts in a Japanese high school classroom. LET Kansai Chapter
Collected Papers, 13, 147-157.
Sato, R. (2011b). Examining the effects of written recasts determined by grammatical
difficulty. HELES Journal, 11, 3-16.
224
Sato, R. (2012a). Self-initiated self-repair attempts by Japanese high school learners while
speaking English. BRAIN. Broad Research in Artificial Intelligence and Neuroscience, 3.
17-28.
Sato, R. (2012b). The effects of written feedback in the form of recasts. The Journal of Asia
TEFL, 9, 295-306.
Sato, R. (2013a). (under review) Examining intermediate-level Japanese university students’
perceptions of recasts: Revisiting repair, acknowledgement and noticing through
stimulated recall.
Sato, R. (2013b). (under review) Examining the effects of recasts types on noticing.
Sato, R., & Takatsuka, S. (2014). (under review) The occurrence and the success rate of
self-initiated self-repair depending on the grammatical difficulty of triggers.
Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing second language acquisition. New York: Cambridge
Press.
Schegoloff, E. (1979). The relevance of repair to syntax-for-conversation. In T. Givon (Ed.),
Syntax and semantics: Vol. 12. Discourse and syntax (pp.261-286). New York: Academic
Press.
Schegoloff, E., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the
organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361-382.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11, 129-158.
Schmidt, R. (1994). Deconstructing consciousness in search of useful definitions for applied
linguistics. AILA Review, 11, 11-26.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Cognition and second language
instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, R., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a second language:
225
A case- study of an adult learner. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in
second language acquisition (pp.237-326). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Seidlehofer, S. (1995). Principle and practice in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Sharwood Smith, M. (1986). Comprehension versus acquisition: Two ways of processing
input. Applied Linguistics, 7, 239-256.
Sheen, Y. (2004). Corrective feedback and learner uptake in communicative classrooms across
instructional settings. Language Teaching Research, 8, 263-300.
Sheen, Y. (2006). Exploring the relationship between characteristics of recasts and learner
uptake. Language teaching Research, 10,361-392.
Shehadeh, A. (2001). Self-and other-initiated modified output during task-based interaction.
TESOL Quarterly, 35, 433-457.
Shehadeh, A. (2002). Comprehensible output, from occurrence to acquisition: An agenda for
acquisitional research. Language Learning, 52, 597–647.
Sheppard, K. (1992). Two feedback types: Do they make a difference? RELC Journal, 23,
103-110.
Shimozaki, M., Matsubara, K., Kuroiwa, Y., Tsujimoto, C., Mochizuki, N., Yui, R., et al.
(2008). Crown English writing (New ed.), Tokyo: Sanseido.
Shirahata, T. (1988). The leaning order of English grammatical morphemes by Japanese high
school students. JACET Bulletin, 19, 83-102.
Simard, D., & Wong, W. (2001). Alterness, orientation, and detection: The conceptualization
of attentional functions in SLA. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 103-124.
Skehan, P. (1995). Analyzability, accessibility, and ability for use. In G. Cook, & B.
Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and Practice in Applied Linguistics. (pp.91-106).Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
226
Skehan, P. (1996). Second language acquisition research and task-based instruction. In J.
Willis, & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp.17-30).
Oxford: Heinemann.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Skehan, P., & Foster, P. (1999). The influence of planning and post-task acitivities on
accuracy and complexity in task based learning. Language teaching Research, 3,
215-247.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass, & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in
second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Swain, M. (1993). The output hypothesis: Just speaking and writing aren’t enough. The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 50, 158-164.
Swain, M. (1995). Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook, & B.
Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honour of H.
G. Widdowson (pp.125-144). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1998). Focus on form through conscious reflection. In C. Doughty, & J. Williams
(Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp. 64-81).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Swain, M. (2005). Legislation by hypothesis: The case of task-based instruction. Applied
Linguistics, 26, 376-401.
Swain, M., & Lapkin, S. (1995). Problems in output and the cognitive process they generate:
A step towards second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 16, 371-391.
Takashima, H. (2000). Jissenteki communication noryoku no tame no eigo tasuku katsudo to
bunpou shidou [English task activities and grammar teaching for practical
227
communication abilities]. Tokyo: Taisyuukan Shoten.
Tomlin, R., & Villa, V. (1994). Attention in cognitive science and second language acquisition.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 181-204.
Tong-Frederics, C. (1984). Types of oral communication activities and the language they
generate: a comparison. System, 12, 133-146.
Trofimovich, P., Ammar, A., & Gatbonton, E. (2007). How effective are recasts: The role of
attention, memory, and analytic ability. In A. Mackey (Ed.), Conversational interaction
in second language acquisition (pp.171-195). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Truscott, J. (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language
Learning, 46, 327-369.
Truscott, J. (1999). The case for ‘‘the case for grammar correction in L2 writing classes’’: A
response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111-122.
Truscott, J. (2007). The effect of error correction on learners’ ability to write accurately.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 16, 255-272.
Truscott, J., & Hsu, A.Y-p. (2008). Error correction, revision, and learning. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 17, 292-305.
Van den Branden, K. (1997). Effects of negotiation on language learners’ output. Language
Learning, 47, 589-636.
Van Hest, E. (1996). Self-repair in L1 and L2 production. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
VanPatten, B. (1990). Attending to form and content in the input: An experiment in
consciousness. Studies n Second Language Acquisition, 12, 287-301.
VanPatten, B. (1993). Grammar teaching for the acquisition-rich classroom. Foreign
Language Annals 26, 435-450.
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language
Acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
228
Varnosfadrani, A. D., & Basturkmen, H. (2009). The effectiveness of implicit and explicit
error correction on learners‘ performance. System, 37, 82-98.
White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and the developmental
of second language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95-110.
Widdowson, H. (1989). Knowledge of language and ability for use. Applied Linguistics, 10,
127-137.
Williams, J. (1999). Memory, attention, and inductive learning. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 21, 1-48.
Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S., & Kim, H. (1998). Second language development in writing:
Measures of fluency, accuracy, & complexity. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Xu, C. (2009). Overgeneralization from a narrow focus: A response to Ellis et al. (2008) and
Bitchener (2008). Journal of Second Language Writing, 18, 270-275.
Yashima, T. (2000). Orientations and motivation in foreign language-learning: A study of
Japanese college students. JACET Bulletin, 31, 121-133.
Yashima, T., Zenuk-Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). The influence of attitudes and affect
on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language
Learning, 54, 119-152.
Yoshida, K. (2002) From the fish bowl to the open Seas: Taking a step toward the real world
of communication. TESOL Matters, 12, 1-5.
Yoshida, K. (2003). A new challenge in English education. Tokyo: Kumon Shuppan.
Yoshida, R. (2008). Teachers’ choice and learners’ preference of corrective-feedback types.
Language Awareness, 17, 78-93.
Yoshida, R. (2010). How do teachers and learners perceive corrective feedback in the
Japanese language classroom? The Modern Language Journal, 94, 293-314.
Yuan, F., & Ellis (2003). The effects of pre-task planning and online planning on fluency,
229
complexity and accuracy in L2 monologic oral production. Applied Linguistics, 24, 1-27.
Zhao, S. Y., & Bitchener, J. (2007). Incidental focus on form in teacher-learner and
learner-learner interactions. System, 35, 431-447.
Zyzik, E., & Polio, C. (2008). Incidental focus on form in university Spanish literature
courses. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 53-70.
230
Appendices
Appendix A: Play-acting… Select oral communication I (三省堂)を参考に改訂
二人でペアになり、以下の会話について
① 役割を決めて、スクリプトを見ながら会話してください
② 次に自分のパートを出来るだけ暗記して会話してください（暗記できなかったり、会話の途中で忘れてし
まったら自分の言葉で会話を続けなさい）
③ 役割を変えて①、②と同じ活動をしてください
Dialogue
Mai: Oh, you are very tall, Ken!
Ken: Yes. Everybody says so.
Mai: If I were you I would play basketball.
Ken: I don’t like it. Mai, you are good at English.
Mai: Thank you. I study English every day.
Ken: I would try to make American friends if I were you.
Mai: I see, but our English teacher speaks English very well.
Ken: But I think if he were an American his English class would be better.
Appendix B: Skeleton dialogue… Select oral communication I (三省堂)を参考に改訂
以下の会話について、
① 役割を決め、空欄を埋めながら会話をしてください（英文は見てもかまわない）
② 次に英文を見ないで会話をしてください
③ 役割を交代し、①、②の活動を繰り返してください
231
Dialogue
Mai: Which country do you want to visit?
Ken: I want to visit(国 名 ).
Mai: Why?
Ken: Because(国 名 ) is famous for (何でも可 ).
または because (国名) is ( ).
Mai: If you had a lot of money what would you buy in the country?
Ken: I would (その国で買う物を答える ).
Mai: (自由に会話する )
Ken: (自由に会話する )
(以後、自由に英語で会話を続けてください)
Appendix C: Interview… Select oral communication I (三省堂)より
もし自由な時間がたくさんあったら何をするか、出来るだけ多くの人にインタビューして表に名前と、何をする
かについて書いてください。叉それ以外の質問を一つ加えて、その人の情報を聞き出し、以後自由に会話を続け
てください（質問は何でもいいです）
※ 出来るだけ何も見ないで会話すること
※ 完全な英文で会話するようにすること
名前 何をするか その他の情報
質問例 If you had a lot of time what would you do?
232
Appendix D: Questionnaires
Ｑ１．あなたは英作文でのフィードバックを大事だと思いましたか
1全く思わない 2ほとんど思わない 3 どちらでもない 4どちらかというと思う 5強く思う
1,または 5を選んだ人はその理由を簡単に書いてください
Ｑ２．あなたは英作文でのフィードバックを参考に書き直しましたか
1全く参考にしなかった 2 ほとんど参考にしなかった 3 どちらでもない
4どちらかというと参考にした 5大いに参考にした
1,または 5を選んだ人はその理由を簡単に書いてください
Ｑ３．あなたは英作文でのフィードバックを理解できましたか
1全く理解できなかった 2 ほとんど理解できなかった 3 どちらでもない
4どちらかというと理解できた 5よく理解できた
1,または 5を選んだ人はその理由を簡単に書いてください
Ｑ４．あなたは英作文でのフィードバックを望みますか
1全く望まない 2ほとんど望まない 3 どちらでもない 4どちらかというと望む
5強く望む 1,または 5を選んだ人はその理由を簡単に書いてください
Ｑ５ 英作文でのフィードバックについての感想を自由に書いてください
